Tetrarchy

The work presents the first Slovak translation of the work On the Deaths of Persecutors by the important Christian apologist Lactantius. His work is an extremely important source for the period of the turn of the 3rd and the 4th century AD because it captures THE important events of the outbreak of the last great persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire called the Great Persecution. Lactantius depicts not only the outbreak and THE course of this difficult period for Christians but also its conclusion and the legalization of Christianity within the Roman Empire through the edict of toleration by Emperor Galerius of 311 and later The Edict of Milan by Constantine the Great of 313.
The monograph deals with the development of the religious situation in the Roman Empire from the 2nd Punic War to the turn of the 3rd and 4th century AD while presenting a point of view at its development in several areas. He focuses on traditional cults, monotheistic religions, the empire's relationship with Christianity and especially the persecution of Christians, the scope of which ranges from local pogroms to empirewide persecution in the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century AD. The work brings new knowledge and perspectives on the issue and shows that the traditional view, for example, of the set of four edicts issued against Christians during the Great Persecution is no longer sustainable, because in fact, as evidenced by Lactantius' De mortibus persecutorum, there was only one anti-Christian edict issued right at the beginning of the state interventions against Christians.

Nel 1887 veniva alla luce l’unica necropoli romana nota di Cles (Trento). Lo studioso Luigi de Campi fornisce un resoconto dettagliato della scoperta, grazie al quale è possibile oggi proporre nuove riflessioni intorno alla localizzazione del sito, alla topografia della necropoli e dell’abitato di Cles e alla rete viaria che lo attraversava. Oltre a ciò, l’acribia descrittiva dell’archeologo anaune consente di identificare sotto il profilo tipo-cronologico molti dei reperti pertinenti al contesto funerario – per parte dei quali, ancora oggi conservati presso il Castello del Buonconsiglio, si fornisce qui una prima edizione – e di approfondire il significato storico ed ideologico della sepoltura di un probabile soldato di epoca tetrarchica, inumato assieme ad un gruzzolo di monete piuttosto singolare.

At the turn of the fourth century, four soldiers ruled the Roman Empire: Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius and Galerius. This Tetrarchy, as modern scholars call it, was the brainchild of Diocletian, and under this emperor's leadership, the regime brought stability to an empire shaken after a half-century of political and military convulsions. These Tetrarchs defeated the resurgent enemies of the empire, they ended an epidemic of military rebellion that had lasted decades, and they attempted numerous reforms in an effort to better the empire both economically and spiritually.

This dissertation examines the Tetrarchy as an imperial dynasty, and it uses the concept of dynasty to highlight how the Tetrarchic regime was often at odds with imperial precedents. Like other Roman dynasts, the Tetrarchs employed adoption, marriage and shared nomenclature in the expression of their rule, but they also ignored certain dynastic norms. Diocletian and Maximian presented themselves as brothers despite being unrelated, and they used the names Jovius and Herculius to imply a close connection to Jupiter and Hercules. Diocletian and Galerius repeatedly excluded the sons of the Tetrarchs from the succession, and the sons themselves were variously hostages, symbols of imperial unity and targets of assassination. Moreover, for most of the Tetrarchic period, imperial women were neither empresses nor deified.

This study investigates these issues through the lens of the Roman army, and it presents the Tetrarchic dynasty as a military experiment, created by and tailored to soldiers. At the beginning of Tetrarchic rule, Rome's armies exerted an unprecedented influence over imperial politics, and the Tetrarchs themselves were products of these armies. This thesis shows that the Tetrarchs gave their sons and the imperial women important but subdued roles within their regime. It proposes that these approaches to dynasty and the decision to create the Tetrarchy came about because of military experience and responded to the pressing need to forestall army rebellion. Furthermore, the study argues that the regime represented the Augusti and their Caesars as pairs of brothers, and that it did so to appeal to the army. It is concluded that friendship, namely the camaraderie of Diocletian and Maximian, was central to dynastic cohesion and imperial unity during the Tetrarchic period. Whatever the intentions of the Tetrarchs, their dynastic junta could only be temporary, since the friendship of the Augusti could not be replicated.

Resumen
En el presente trabajo se observará un gran debate de diferentes historiadores sobre el Imperio Romano de Occidente, en el mismo emergerán el pensamiento antiguo y profano, la irrupción del cristianismo y el impacto que produjo al pensamiento pagano tradicional, como así también el lenguaje imperante entre los pensadores del pasado.

Abstract
In the present work a great debate of different historians about the Western Roman Empire will be observed, in it the ancient and profane thought will emerge, the irruption of Christianity and the impact it produced on traditional pagan thought, as well as the prevailing language between the thinkers of the past.

Enlace a la web de la revista: http://www.revcienciapolitica.com.ar/

In our days we tend to think of conspiracy theories as a predominantly modern concept, which expanded widely during the Cold War and we often underestimate their influence in the public Logos, classifying them as pseudo-history and product of collective illusion. However the occasional unexpected course of politics and the accidental events which might occur only make conspiracies to appear even more attractive, turning them to self-fulfilling prophecies. The term ‘conspiracy’ and its context in the ‘modern’ sense (i. e. a ‘secret’ conspiracy that threatens the existence of a society)was firstly introduced by the fourth century historian Ammianus Marcellinus in order to describe what seemed to be a barbarian collaboration to invade and pillage the north-western Roman provinces in 367 AD. Therefore in order to explain this supposed barbarian collaboration against Rome, he coined the term Conspiratio Barbarica.  Half a century later the Roman authorities and the populus Romanus felt that they were facing the combined forces of an external threat and a collaborating enemy within. The gradual rise and influence of men of (semi)barbarian origin in the army and Court and the increase and effectiveness of barbarian raids and invasions became a great concern causing people to start searching for answers beyond the field of the Obvious or the effectiveness of the of the late Roman modus gubernandi, concluding in their fear and anxiety that the only explanation was that someone from within had invited the barbarians in order to destroy Rome. In such a time of uncertainty and insecurity, the manufacturing of invisible intruders and traitors of the Romanitas in the collective imagination was almost inevitable. This paper will attempt to examine the rise and influence of conspiracy theories among the late Roman elites and people and will highlight all those conditions and factors that made those theories so appealing and attractive as an interpretation and explanation of the Late Roman Realities.

Au printemps 310 , l’empereur Constantin, visitant en Gaule un temple anonyme, y aurait vu Apollon, accompagné de la Victoire, apparaître devant lui . En 1926, Camille Jullian proposa de localiser à Grand le sanctuaire visité par Constantin et qualifia de « vision » l’apparition d’Apollon dans le temple anonyme . Il joua ainsi un rôle décisif dans la construction historiographique de l’événement, connu depuis comme la « vision » de Constantin, ou comme la « vision de Grand » . Quelques années plus tard, Henri Grégoire enrôlait l’épisode dans une offensive de grande ampleur contre l’authenticité de la Vita Constantini. Pour le savant belge, la « vision païenne » rapportée par le panégyrique de 310 avait inspiré les récits de Lactance et d’Eusèbe relatant la vision chrétienne, et elle n’était comme eux qu’une légende . Depuis, l’épisode n’a cessé de diviser les chercheurs . Si on laisse de côté les variantes de détail, trois interprétations cohabitent actuellement dans l’historiographie.
- Un premier groupe de chercheurs exprime un franc scepticisme et considère la vision comme un morceau de rhétorique  ; certains s’efforcent en outre de rationaliser l’épisode : Constantin aurait observé des statues de culte, et l’orateur aurait ensuite brodé et renchéri .
- D’autres historiens acceptent au contraire la sincérité du récit , et estiment que l’orateur relate une expérience religieuse authentique, qu’il s’agisse d’un songe de Constantin (A. Grenier) ou de l’observation d’un halo solaire (P. Weiss).
- Enfin, en réaction peut-être à ces divergences et à un débat pouvant apparaître sans issue, plusieurs études influentes ont estimé qu’il était impossible de déterminer ce qui avait pu réellement se passer et ce que Constantin avait cru voir en 310 dans le temple anonyme .
Dans les discussions sur le parcours religieux du prince et sa conversion au christianisme, l’épisode de la vision occupe une place très importante, marquant pour nombre d’historiens la première conversion de Constantin et son ralliement à une forme de religion solaire . Et dans les recherches menées sur le site de Grand, la localisation en ce lieu du sanctuaire anonyme et de la vision a aussi joué un rôle notable en semblant corroborer l’hypothèse avancée par Jollois au XIXe siècle d’un sanctuaire apollinien implanté à Grand. Cependant, depuis dix ans, un Projet Collectif de Recherche dirigé par Th. Dechezleprêtre a permis de « [réexaminer] la documentation ancienne tout en lançant de nouvelles études » . Cette démarche transversale implique une déconstruction des grilles interprétatives jusqu’alors en vigueur, bousculant au passage nombre d’hypothèses anciennes sur lesquelles s’étaient fondées les interprètes du panégyrique et les spécialistes de Constantin. Dès lors, ces révisions portant sur la documentation archéologique nous invitent à examiner à nouveau le discours de 310 pour revenir d’une part sur la fameuse vision, et d’autre part sur la question du passage de Constantin à Grand et de la présence en ces lieux du templum toto orbe pulcherrimum. Trois questions retiendront notre attention. Il s’agit tout d’abord de la localisation du temple visité par Constantin, que l’on a pris l’habitude, depuis Camille Jullian, de situer à Grand (1). Nous évoquerons ensuite la prétendue vision apollinienne et les difficultés posées par les théories du songe et du halo solaire (2), et montrerons que l’orateur n’a pas sérieusement affirmé  que Constantin avait eu une vision dans le sanctuaire (3). Enfin, ceci nous amènera à reconsidérer dans son entièreté l’hypothèse de Jullian, ainsi que la place du discours de 310 dans le dossier religieux constantinien (4).

Folgende Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit der Zeit von der Entstehung bis zur Auflösung der Römischen Tetrarchie. Der Kern der Arbeit wird also auf die Jahre zwischen 284, als Diokletian auf den Thron gelang, und 324, als das durch Diokletian eingeführte tetrarchische System mit der Erhebung Konstantins zum Alleinherrscher endgültig scheiterte, begrenzt; vonnöten ist jedoch, auch eine kurze Beschreibung der
Reichskrise des 3. Jahrhunderts zu geben, da sich dadurch ein deutlicheres Bild der Situation im Römischen Reich am Ende des 3. Jahrhunderts darstellen lässt.

Die im Rahmen dieser Arbeit anzusehende Zeitperiode kennzeichnet den Beginn eines neuen Zeitalters, der Spätantike, und ist nicht nur für die römische, sondern auch für die allgemeine europäische und mittelmeerische Geschichte von großer Bedeutung. Die Zeit der Tetrarchie ist ein Übergang von der Antike zu einer neuen Epoche, während der der religiöse Charakter des Reiches endgültig geändert und der Weg dem Aufstieg der Christenheit bereitet wurde. Ziel der Arbeit ist die historischen Ereignisse im Römischen Reich während dieser Übergangsphase von 284 bis 324 ausführlich darzustellen.

Zu der Zeit Diokletians und Konstantins verfügen wir leider über keine guten uns überlieferten historiographischen Quellen. Hauptsächlich erfahren wir von dieser Zeit durch das Werk des Lactantius ‚De mortibus persecutorum‘, sowohl durch Eusebios’ ‚Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin‘ und ‚Kirchengeschichte‘. Die ‚Neue Geschichte‘ des Zosimos berichtet auch von der Zeit Konstantins, jedoch schreibt er viel später. Besonders skeptisch wird von der heutigen Forschung die Zuverlässigkeit des Lactantius betrachtet. Seine Schriften sind besonders tendenziös gegenüber den Christenverfolgern, und wir können sie als zuverlässige historische Quelle nur dann akzeptieren, wenn die darin beinhaltenden Informationen „von anderen Quellen bestätigt“ werden beziehungsweise nicht als Teil seiner Verleumdungspropaganda erscheinen.

This volume explores one of the most complex, multifaceted and momentous of all western cultural transformations: the refashioning of the Roman principate under Constantine in the early fourth century AD. It does so through the kaleidoscopic lens of one of antiquity’s most fascinating (and maligned) artists: Publilius Optatianus Porfyrius. Optatian’s works are little known among classicists and historians. Nevertheless, his picture-poems uniquely reflect, figure, and shape the cultural dynamics of the period. By bringing together different disciplinary perspectives the volume demonstrates how the poems give unique form to the various political, intellectual and cultural currents of the age. Contributors champion Optatian as a uniquely creative artist – and one who anticipated some of our most pressing literary critical, art historical and philosophical concerns today.

DE LA CRISIS A LA RESTAURACIÓN DEL ORDEN: EMPERADORES ILIRIOS, LA TETRARQUÍA Y CONSTANTINO (268-324). Conferencia dentro del congreso "Edicto de Milán: 1700 años de libertad religiosa para los cristianos (313-2013). Universidad Católica San Antonio (Murcia).

O presente estudo se propõe a comparar os panegíricos dedicados à Maximiano (289 e 291) e Constâncio Cloro (297), bem como o contexto em que estas últimas são produzidas. Procura apontar ainda, as bases do reconhecimento e legitimidade imperial, uma vez que a crise do século III, também conhecida como Anarquia Militar só termina, grosso modo, com a ascensão de Diocleciano ao poder em 284 e a implantação do sistema político-administrativo da tetrarquia. Destaca também, a influência da província da Britânia no âmbito imperial, bem como a repercussão das usurpações ocorridas em seu território, com destaque àquela perpetrada por Caurasio, autoproclamado Imperator da Britania e do norte da Gália. Tolerado, porém não reconhecido pelo Imperadores legítimos Diocleciano - Augusto Senior vinculado ao deus Júpiter e governante da parte oriental do império - e Maximiano - Augusto responsável pela porção ocidental do império e cuja imagem se vincula a Hercules, semideus hierarquicamente inferior a Júpiter. Portanto, os objetivos desta pesquisa são, através da análise dos panegíricos, esboçar o contexto político, econômico e militar da Britânia Romana após os eventos conhecidos pela historiografia como ANARQUIA MILITAR pela ótica da Antiguidade Tardia; verificar e problematizar a questão da legitimidade Imperial através da comparação entre os imperadores “legítimos” e os usurpadores.

ÖZ
AUGUSTUS (MÖ 27 – MS 14) VE DIOCLETIANUS (MS 284 – 305)
DÖNEMLERI IDARI, EKONOMIK VE SOSYAL REFORMLARININ
INCELENMESI VE IKI DÖNEMIN KARSILASTIRMASI
R. HAKAN ARSLANBABA
Roma Imparatorluğu'nun Cumhuriyet, Principatus ya da Dominatus olarak ayrılan
tarihsel asamaları birbirinden tümüyle ayrı yeni çağlar olarak değerlendirilemez. Augustus ve
Diocletianus dönemlerinde gerçeklestirilen reformlar, yasanan kriz yüzyıllarının yönetim
sorunları ile güçlü bir bağ ve sürekliliğe sahiptir. Bu bağlamda Roma Imparatorluğu'nun bu
önemli esik noktalarını bir arada ele alarak bütünlüklü bir dönüsüm seyri olusturulması
amaçlanmıstır. Bu çalısmada Geç Cumhuriyet döneminden (MÖ 2. yüzyıl), Tetrarsi
yönetimlerinin sonuna kadar olan dönemde (MS 284 – 324) Roma Imparatorluğu'nun
geçirdiği dönüsümler, idari, ekonomik ve toplumsal baslıklar altında ele alınmıstır.
Imparatorluğun Principatus ve Dominatus dönemlerine geçis asamasında edinilen
tecrübelerin her iki imparatorun reformlarına olan katkıları da değerlendirilmistir. Augustus
ve sonrasında Diocletianus önderliğindeki Tetrarsi yönetimi tarafından gerçeklestirilen
reformlar karsılastırmalı bir sekilde incelenmistir.
R. Hakan ARSLANBABA
Anahtar Kelimeler: Augustus, Diocletianus, Principatus, Dominatus, Kriz, Dönüsüm,
Reform
iv
ABSTRACT
RESEARCH ON ADMINISTRATIVE, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
REFORMS OF AUGUSTUS (BC 27 – AD 14) AND DIOCLETIANUS (AD
284 – 305): COMPARISION OF THE REIGNS
R. HAKAN ARSLANBABA
Historical periodization of the eras of the Roman Empire like Republican, Principatus
or Dominatus can not be consider as a completely different and new eras. The motives of
reforms which are performed in the age of Augustus and Diocletianus have rooted
connections and continuity with their past tumultuous centuries. In this context it has been
aimed to create a complete transformation course by taking these critical threshold points of
Roman Empire together. The transitions of the Roman empire from late republic (2nd Century
BC) to end of the tetrarchic governances (284 – 324 CE) were studied under the
administrative, economic and social heading. Impact of acquired experiences on emperors'
reforms during transition process to the Principatus and Dominatus have been examined. The
reforms of Augustus and Diocletianus have been studied comperatively.
R. Hakan ARSLANBABA
Key Words: Augustus, Diocletianus, Principatus, Dominatus, Crisis, Conversion, Reforms

PhD dissertation on the buildings and representation of emperor Maxentius (306-312 A.D.) in the city of Rome. The book analyzes all available evidence, especially coins and architecture, and arrives at new conclusions regarding the image of this ruler in the late Roman context.

The rule of Constantine I. (306–337 AD) marks a pivotal moment in the history of the Roman empire. On the threshold between Principate and Late Antiquity, the Roman monarchy experienced a profound social, political, religious, and cultural transformation. The book approaches the era focussing on the development of triumphal rulership. The attention lies on two main genera of historical sources that are analysed systematically: panegyrical texts (the Panegyrici Latini, but also the panegyrical figure poems of Publilius Optatianus and the Eusebius' tricennial oration) on the one hand and imperial coins and medallions on the other. Both Panegyrics and coins/medallions served as media of communicative interaction between the ruler and the ruled. On the basis of a close analysis of these sources, the book carves out fascinating tensions between tradition and innovation in the fields of military representation, court culture, religious change and social conflict. // —

Awards: Bruno-Snell-Preis (Mommsen-Gesellschaft); Walter-Hävernick-Preis (Numismatische Kommission) // —

Reviews: Latomus 75.2 (2016), 533—536 [Jean-Pierre Callu]; Journal of Late Antiquity 8.1 (2015), 235—237 [Noel Lenski]; KLIO 97 (2015), 360—372 [Frank Kolb]; Frankfurter Elektronische Rundschau 28 (2015), 63—71 [Raphael Brendel]; Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 5/6 (2014), 391—393 [Raimund Schulz u. Uwe Walter]; L'Antiquité Classique 83 (2014), 455—457 [Alain Chauvot]; Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 17 (2014), 1167—1177 [Horst Schneider]; Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 63 (2013), 377—385 [Kay Ehling]; Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt 9 (2013), 332—333 [Bernhard Weisser]; Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt 8 (2013), 314—315 [Karl Strobel]; H-Soz-Kult 8.4.2013 [Ulrich Lambrecht]. // —

"This is a formidable book. It demonstrates a remarkable mastery of a large and very complex body of sources. Wienand’s command of details as well as the big picture—the sweep of historical change over thirty-seven years—are heartily to be commended. In some ways, the book’s greatest virtue is also its main shortcoming. Wienand’s unflagging pursuit of precision, breadth, and depth can cause even the diligent reader to lose interest in—and track of—the argument. Overall, however, this is a very important book by a very accomplished young scholar.“
— Noel Lenski, in: Journal of Late Antiquity 8 (2015), 235—237

The article proposes revised readings for Greek and Latin inscriptions from Cabyle. Two Hellenistic fragments are shown to belong to the same honorary decree. Two alleged mentions of Celts in Hellenistic fragments are proved to be misreading. In two inscriptions of AD 135-136, the nomen of the provincial governor ---rius Fronto is reconstructed as Cavarius. The restored consular date in one inscription provides a date for the governor of Thrace Q. Egnatius Proculus. A Greek inscription, which was incorrectly dated to the first half of the third century, actually belongs to the period of the First Tetrarchy and documents the building of the fortifications of Cabyle under the governor Domitius Domninus in AD 297. Another inscription, dated to AD 309-310, is about the construction of a gynaeceum (state textile workshop). The two tetrarchic inscriptions also reveal the new status of Cabyle in that period – previously a military camp (castra), it was raised to a city, with the title “the splendid city of Cabyle” (ἡ λαμπρὰ Καβυληνῶν πόλις). The main magistrate of the new city was the λογιστής
(= curator civitatis), and the first members of the city’s curia were called δεκάπρωτοι
(as a translation of the Latin decemprimi).

The Gregorian and Hermogenian Codes do not survive and so have to be imagined from their remains recycled into other late antique legal works, in particular the Justinian Code. Additional illumination may also be provided if the recent identification of some fragments (Fragmenta Londiniensia Anteiustiniana) as coming from the Gregorian Code is correct. From the various sources, it is clear that the Hermogenian Code consisted almost solely of private rescripts issued by Diocletian and his colleagues in the two years 293 and 294, while the Gregorian Code, consisting mainly but not only of private rescripts, covered the period from Hadrian up to some point in the 290s. Both were arranged thematically under titles (the Gregorianus also in Books), further developing principles of organization from earlier juristic collections, that had brought together both praetorian and non-praetorian legal topics. The two codes were also probably the first legal works to appear in the new “codex” rather than roll format. While the Hermogenian Code was produced by a jurist prominent at Diocletian’s court from texts he himself wrote in the emperors’ names, it is not certain that this was so for the Gregorianus, of whose compiler we know nothing. Nor are the publication dates and relative sequence of the two codes clear, although both must have appeared by c.300. There is no evidence that either existed in more than one formal edition. Whether or not sponsored by Diocletian, the codes mark two important features of Diocletian’s reign. First, they disseminated more widely than ever before a huge range of imperial legal rulings in a coherent and ordered way, serving the needs of not only the state (officials and governors) and professionals (advocates, law-teachers), but also of a citizen population, nominally Roman, but still unfamiliar with Roman legal norms, and eager for any legal advantage. Secondly, the codes mark the supersession of earlier authoritative forms of law-making or exposition (lex, senatus consultum, juristic writing) and demonstrate the emperor’s dominance in the creation and interpretation of normative legal texts.

Σε αυτήν την μονογραφία ο Δ. Χριστοδούλου παρακολουθεί την εμφάνιση και εξαφάνιση των μορφών των διαφόρων αρχαίων θεών στην νομισματοκοπία της Τετραρχίας (284-324) και του Μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου (306-337). Η έρευνα εστιάζει στους προσωπικούς θεούς των Τετραρχών και του Κωνσταντίνου, δηλαδή τον Δία, τον Ηρακλή, τον Άρη και ιδίως τον Ήλιο. Οι υποδεέστεροι θεοί και οι αφηρημένες προσωποποιήσεις λαμβάνονται και αυτές υπ’ όψη. Ο συγγραφέας υποστηρίζει ότι οι μορφές των αρχαίων θεών στην νομισματοκοπία του Κωνσταντίνου προβάλλουν την ηγεμονική εικόνα που ο ίδιος επιθυμούσε να παρουσιασθεί σε κάθε διαδοχική περίοδο της βασιλείας του, ακολουθώντας επιτυχώς τις επιταγές της αυτοκρατορικής προπαγάνδας: Κατά το πρώτο έτος της βασιλείας του, ο Κωνσταντίνος ακολούθησε απαρέγκλιτα τον τετραρχικό εικονογραφικό τύπο του (Αγαθο-)δαίμονος του Ρωμαϊκού Λαού (Genius Populi Romani). Όταν, μετά τον σφετερισμό του Μαξεντίου, άλλαξε η ισορροπία δυνάμεων στην Δύση, τα νομίσματα άρχισαν να προβάλλουν την νομιμοποίησή του διά της δυναστείας των «Ηρκουλίων» στην οποίαν ανήκε, με την εμφάνιση του προστάτη του θεού Άρεως. Τέλος, μετά την εκτέλεση του Μαξιμιανού Ηρκουλίου (310), το κύριο θέμα των νομισματικών τύπων έγινε ο θεός Ήλιος, καθώς μέσω αυτού συνδεόταν με τον Κλαύδιο Γοτθικό και η νομιμοποίησή του λάμβανε εξ αίματος δυναστικό χαρακτήρα. Πάντως, ακόμη και τότε η νομισματοκοπία του δεν έπαυσε να αναφέρεται περιοδικά και στους παλαιότερους τετραρχικούς προστάτες του θεούς. Αυτές οι εκφάνσεις τις αυτοκρατορικής προπαγάνδας φαίνεται πως δεν συνδέονται με τις προσωπικές θρησκευτικές πεποιθήσεις του ιδίου του Κωνσταντίνου, εάν υποθέσουμε ότι ο ίδιος είχε ειλικρινώς μεταστραφεί στον Χριστιανισμό το 312. Αυτό γίνεται φανερό εάν συγκρίνουμε την νομισματοκοπία του με αυτήν άλλων Ρωμαίων αυτοκρατόρων, όπως ο Ηλιογάβαλος, ο Αυρηλιανός και πιθανώς ο συναυτοκράτωρ του Λικίνιος. Όλοι αυτοί είχαν προωθήσει νομισματικώς τις θρησκευτικές τους απόψεις και προβάλει τον ευνοούμενο θεό τους με τρόπο που δεν επιδέχεται αμφισβήτηση. Ο συγγραφέας υποστηρίζει ότι ο Κωνσταντίνος δεν έπραξε το ίδιο και από την εικονογραφία των νομισμάτων του απουσιάζει εντελώς ο ένθερμος ζήλος του νεοπροσηλυτισθέντος που του αποδίδουν οι χριστιανικές πηγές. Η εξαφάνιση των αρχαίων θεών συμβαίνει σταδιακά και ολοκληρώνεται μόνο μετά την κατάκτηση της Ανατολής. Το γεγονός αυτό συμφωνεί χρονολογικά με την μαρτυρία των ειδωλολατρών ιστορικών που τοποθετούν την οριστική ρήξη του Κωνσταντίνου με την αρχαία θρησκεία μόνο μετά την εκτέλεση του Κρίσπου (θέρος του 326). Η συνύπαρξη αντιφατικών μηνυμάτων που προέρχονται από μία πηγή, εν προκειμένω τον αυτοκράτορα, αλλά απευθύνονται σε διαφορετικές κοινωνικές ή άλλες ομάδες που συχνά έχουν αλληλοσυγκρουόμενα συμφέροντα, δεν θεωρείται τυχαία, αλλά αποτελεί την πεμπτουσία της βασιλείας του Κωνσταντίνου: Η αμφίσημη εικόνα του αυτοκράτορα που προβάλλουν τα νομίσματα (μέσα στο πλαίσιο της ευρύτερης αυτοκρατορικής προπαγάνδας) επέτρεψε στον Κωνσταντίνο να παρουσιάζεται ως μονάρχης αποδεκτός σε όλους (ειδωλολάτρες και Χριστιανούς) και να πληροί τις προσδοκίες της πλειονότητας των υπηκόων του, τουλάχιστον έως την ήττα του τελευταίου ανταπαιτητή του στον θρόνο.

The paper deals with the city of Rome as an imperial residence under emperor Maxentius (306-312 AD). While Maxentius is often seen as a "traditional" emperor, and his representation as an antithesis to the representation of the tetrarchic emperors, the article argues that the buildings in and around Rome (basilica of Maxentius, Temple of Venus and Roma, Palatine palaces, suburbian villa complex) are a prime example of contemporary imperial representation.

This article reflects on some of the problems inherent in the study of imperial (self)presentation. It argues that Roman emperors had to bridge the gap between the reality of emperorship and its perception by different layers of society. Augustus solved the problem by putting forward a multi-faceted imperial persona, to whom different audiences could relate differently. This plurality characterised ‘normal’ images of power in the first two centuries of the Roman Empire. Exception to the rule was imagery of those rulers who expressly aimed to legitimate themselves through clear but controversial visual programmes. This resulted in inflexible imagery, and antagonistic reactions. The problems which the Roman Empire faced in the third century widened the ‘gap’ between imperial image and daily reality, and changed the dynamics through which Roman ideology was formulated.

Preview. For the full paper https://elibrary.steiner-verlag.de/article/10.25162/historia-2021-0006

If you have problems with the platform, please contact me (aitorbp@usal.es)

The political communities of western Asia Minor produced an enormous amount of inscriptions under Roman rule. For the period between AD 260 and 280, however, the epigraphic habit falls dramatically and this situation largely continues in the 4th and 5th centuries. The aim of this paper is to analyse the phenomenon in the transitional Tetrarchic age, when a notable increase in testimony, particularly milestones and texts related to the new regime (e. g. ‘Edict of Prices’), can be observed. My study of continuities and changes concludes that the propagandistic efforts under the Tetrarchs did not ultimately coincide with a full reactivation of civic epigraphic culture and this new scenario should remain fundamental for our assessment of Late Antiquity in the region.

Contested Monarchy reappraises the wide-ranging and lasting transformation of the Roman monarchy between the Principate and Late Antiquity. The book takes as its focus the century from Diocletian to Theodosius I (284–395), a period during which the stability of monarchical rule depended heavily on the emperor’s mobility, on collegial or dynastic rule, and on the military resolution of internal political crises. At the same time, profound religious changes modified the premises of political interaction and symbolic communication between the emperor and his subjects, and administrative and military readjustments changed the institutional foundations of the Roman monarchy. This volume concentrates on the measures taken by emperors of this period to cope with the changing framework of their rule. The collection examines monarchy along three distinct yet intertwined fields: Administering the Empire, Performing the Monarchy, and Balancing Religious Change. Each field possesses its own historiography and methodology, and accordingly has usually been treated separately. This volume’s multifaceted approach builds on recent scholarship and trends to examine imperial rule in a more integrated fashion. With new work from a wide range of international scholars, Contested Monarchy offers a fresh survey of the role of the Roman monarchy in a period of significant and enduring change. // – – –

“This exceptionally valuable book offers multiple perspectives on the development of the institutional, ideological and religious aspects of the Roman empire’s first Christian century. Breaking away from traditional divisions according to dynasty or religion, we see how the Roman state developed new answers to the central question of its own legitimacy. Eschewing simplistic generalizations, the diverse contributions offer multiple perspectives on the way the Roman system of government interacted with its subjects. Wienand has performed an invaluable service by facilitating a wide ranging encounter among scholarly styles to promote a well-articulated discussion of significant themes in the governance of the Roman Empire, illuminating not only the period under consideration, but earlier and later periods as well.”
—David Potter, University of Michigan

Reviews

Journal of Roman Studies 106 (2016), 361-363 [Alexander Skinner]; Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2015.11.34 [Jan Willem Drijvers]; Sehepunkte 15 (2015) Nr. 11 [Adrastos Omissi]; H-Soz-Kult 18.5.2015 [Raphael Brendel]

Reviewers Quotes:

"This is a book that deepens our sense of the complexity, and unexpectedness, of the late Roman Empire. It is a landmark."
—Alexander Skinner

"Contested Monarchy is an enormously valuable volume without a weak link in its chain of articles. It is a must have for any scholar working on late Roman political, social, or religious history and for the library of any university that offers courses on the fourth century. Its depth of inquiry and range of coverage means that it will be of great value to researchers but the articles are all sufficiently accessible that advanced students will be able to gain much from them as well. The articles can be read individually, but the volume repays reading as a whole."
—Adrastos Omissi

"This is a fine collection of articles articulating the contested Roman imperial rule of late antiquity. Everybody interested in the late Roman empire will profit from it."
—Jan Willem Drijvers

CONTENTS

<Introduction>
1. Johannes Wienand: "The Cloak of Power: Dressing and Undressing the King"

<Part One: Administering the Empire>
2. John Weisweiler: "Domesticating the Senatorial Elite: Universal Monarchy and Transregional Aristocracy in the Fourth Century AD"
3. John Noël Dillon: "The Inflation of Rank and Privilege: Regulating Precedence in the Fourth Century AD"
4. Sebastian Schmidt-Hofner: "Ostentatious Legislation: Law and Dynastic Change, AD 364–365"
5. Doug Lee: "Emperors and Generals in the Fourth Century"
6. Joachim Szidat: "Gaul and the Roman Emperors of the Fourth Century"
7. Michael Kulikowski: "Regional Dynasties and Imperial Court"

<Part Two: Performing the Monarchy>
8. Mark Humphries: "Emperors, Usurpers, and the City of Rome: Performing Power from Diocletian to Theodosius"
9. Johannes Wienand: "O tandem felix civili, Roma, victoria! Civil-War Triumphs from Honorius to Constantine and Back"
10. Hartmut Leppin: "Coping with the Tyrant’s Faction: Civil-War Amnesties and Christian Discourses in the Fourth Century AD"
11. Christopher Kelly: "Pliny and Pacatus: Past and Present in Imperial Panegyric"
12. Henning Börm: "Born to Be Emperor: The Principle of Succession and the Roman Monarchy"
13. Christian Reitzenstein-Ronning: "Performing Justice: The Penal Code of Constantine the Great"

<Part Three: Balancing Religious Change>
14. Harold Drake: "Speaking of Power: Christian Redefinition of the Imperial Role in the Fourth Century"
15. Bruno Bleckmann: "Constantine, Rome, and the Christians"
16. Noel Lenski: "Constantine and the Tyche of Constantinople"
17. Steffen Diefenbach: "A Vain Quest for Unity: Creeds and Political (Dis)Integration in the Reign of Constantius II"
18. Johannes Hahn: "The Challenge of Religious Violence: Imperial Ideology and Policy in the Fourth Century"
19. Rita Lizzi Testa: "The Famous ‘Altar of Victory Controversy’ in Rome: The Impact of Christianity at the End of the Fourth Century"

<Epilogue>
20. Johannes Wienand: "The Empire’s Golden Shade: Icons of Sovereignty in an Age of Transition"

This paper deals with the Rome of the 4th century A.D., beginning with a coin bearing the image of Maxentius that depicts the emperor interacting with a personification of the Goddess Roma in her temple. It examines imperial strategies for self-depiction as a divine personage. Even if the depiction of the globe being passed from Roma to the emperor does not represent an actual event, it nevertheless refers to ceremonial acts situated in a specific architectonic context. The temple was restored by Maxentius and served, together with an imperial entrance hall (the Basilica of Maxentius) erected across from it, as a stage for an elaborate municipal and imperial ceremony. The coin image addresses these events, but, true to the nature of the medium, it exercises its ideological expressiveness without actually being present at the site of the ceremony. Construed in this way, the spatial references thus recall the modern phenomenon of cyberspace.

One of the most spectacular literary sources for the reign of Constantine the Great has been largely been neglected by modern historical research: During the years 317-326 AD, the Roman senator Publilius Optatianus Porfyrius composed a series of panegyrical pattern poems which were presented as a gift to the emperor Constantine the Great on the occasion of his vicennalia. This collection is the only contemporary textual evidence that allows us closer insight into the development of imperial court culture in these years. The aim of this paper is to carve out what the carmina can tell us about the formation of the Constantinian dynasty as one of the most profound development processes of the aetas Constantini. This requires a detailed analysis of the literary and performative dimensions of Optatian’s carmina figurata.

In the imperial succession of 305, the persecuting emperors Diocletian and Maximian abdicated, and the sons of the reigning emperors were prevented from succeeding to imperial power. The Christian author Lactantius describes this event in chapters 17 to 19 of De Mortibus Persecutorum (henceforth DMP), a work that ostensibly narrates the decline in power and deaths of persecutors to demonstrate God’s uirtus and maiestas. However, DMP is remarkable for the fact that it combines sustained invective against its subjects, the persecutors, with a detailed history of events from 303 to 313. This article considers DMP as a work of invective history and focusses on the account of the succession to demonstrate how Lactantius’s vituperative characterizations, historical narrative and thesis of divine judgement complement one another. It argues that the succession creates a sophisticated and subversive juncture for his characterizations. Lactantius’s Galerius is a power-hungry barbarian, his Maximinus a perfidious barbarian, and, subverting a topos, his Diocletian is an impotent coward. Over the course of chapters 17 through 19, their combined personalities create the circumstances that will govern their collective loss of power, their deaths and the damnatio memoriae of their regime.

Cet article a été publié dans les Actes du colloque international Constantin et la Gaule, qui s’est tenu à Grand et à Domrémy, les 6 et 7 octobre 2010 à l’occasion du 1700e anniversaire de la « vision païenne » de Constantin. Il s’intéresse à la religion et à la politique religieuse de Constance Chlore : l’objectif est de l’examiner en faisant abstraction de Constantin, pour ensuite mieux comprendre le parcours religieux de ce dernier. Après avoir examiné l’hypothèse faisant de Constance un chrétien, l’étude met à l’épreuve la théorie qui voit en lui un monothéiste ou un hénothéiste dévot du Soleil, et montre comment cette idée a pu s’imposer dans l’historiographie. Enfin, elle s’intéresse à sa politique religieuse à l’égard des chrétiens, et à son attitude, supposément modérée, durant la persécution. Cette étude invite ainsi à revoir la trajectoire religieuse de la famille constantinienne.

The Luxor temple was one of the most important temples in Egypt well into the Roman period. Between the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century AD, the temple underwent significant architectural and decorative alterations: the enclosure wall was rebuilt and equipped with towers and gates; the inner space was newly organized with a grid of streets, whose intersections were decorated with two monumental tetrastyla honouring the emperors. The structure of the temple was altered to accommodate new functions: a vestibule to the sancta sanctorum was partly closed off and painted with frescoes depicting the emperors and other figures involved in various activities. These interventions are usually interpreted as aimed at adapting the abandoned temple to a military camp, so that the painted chamber would have been the shrine of the standards, or a room dedicated to the imperial cult. Much effort has been devoted to the reconstruction and interpretation of the paintings, relying mostly on the watercolour sketches made by John Gardner Wilkinson in 1856 and rediscovered in 1953 by Ugo Monneret de Villard.

Thanks to the restoration led by the American Research Center in Egypt in 2005-2008 and the subsequent publication of a detailed monograph, new materials are available for analysis. The aim of this chapter is to place the temple and its paintings in the framework of late antique visual culture, on both a regional and an empire-wide scale. The new architectural arrangement of the complex is compared to other buildings of the tetrarchic period (fortresses, military camps, palaces) in order to outline a clearer picture of what Luxor would have looked like after the late antique interventions. The analysis of the paintings is focused on the images of the emperors, comparing them to other official representations in an empire-wide perspective in order to highlight the peculiarities of the Luxor frescoes and their meaning. Much emphasis is placed on the reception of imperial images in the Egyptian context, as well as on the interaction between these and local visual traditions, with the aim of defining how much the formal arrangement and iconography of the paintings owes to the temple’s (old and new) functions and the local artistic milieu, and how many features they share with other imperial images in non-Egyptian contexts. Analysis of this unique evidence contributes to understanding the visual culture of the late Roman provinces, as well as visual manifestations of imperial ideology.