Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Praetorian Prefecture of Africa Unde

    Uploaded by

    Sidiropoulos Dimitrios
    26 views8 pages

    Original Title

    The_praetorian_prefecture_of_Africa_unde

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    26 views8 pages

    The Praetorian Prefecture of Africa Unde

    Uploaded by

    Sidiropoulos Dimitrios

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    Institut d‘ tudis Catalans Universitat de Barcelona Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Xl en faut ws TNCRAMIN, QAM t way PROVINCIAE IMPERH ROMANI INSCRIPTIONIBVS DESCRIPTAE Barcelona, 3-8 Septembris 2002 Ediderunt Marc Mayer i Olivé Giulia Baratta Alejandra Guzman Almagro ACTA I Monografies de la Secci6 Historico-Arqueologica, X BARCELONA 2007 Biblioteca de Catalunya, Dades CIP International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (12¢ : 2002 : Barcelona) XII Congressus Internationalis Ppigraphiae Graecae et Latinae : Provinciae Imperii Romani inscriptionibus descriptae : Barcelona, 3-8 Septembris 2002, — (Monografies de la Seccié Mistorico-Arqueoldgica : 10) Bibliografia ISBN 978-84-7283-921-2 (0.c) Io Mayer, Mare, ed. 1 Haratta, Giulia, ed. 11, Guzman Almagro, Alejandra, ed. IV. Institut é‘Estudis Catalans V. Universitat de Barcelona VI. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Vil. Thol VII, Col lecci6: Monografies de la Seccié Historico-Arqueologica ; 10 1. Inscripcions gregues — Congressos 2. Inscripcions Ilatines — Congressos 930,27(37+38)(061.3) © dels autors de les ponéncies, © 2007, Institut d'Estudis Catalans, per a aquesta edicis Carrer del Carme, 47, 08001 Barcelona Primera edicio:juliol de 2007 Tiratge: 150 exemplars ‘Compost per Victor Igual, SL Carrer del Peu de la Creu, 5. 08001 Barcelona Impres a Book Print Digital, SA. ISBN (obra completa): 978-84-7283-921-2 ISBN (volum segon): 978-84-7283.923.6 Dipdsit Legal: B, 37.370-2007 ‘én sigorosament prohibide serge Fautoritaci esrta dels tiulers del cpr, la repreducei cota o parca aquesta obra per asalsevol Drocediment super, incloen-hi la repograia el teactament informa, stsbucls exemplars mitjancant Hognero péstec comercial Tents tegto pact on bases de dade itn consulta a través de xaraatelemaicaodternet. Les infraclons aquest res estan stm ses. les saniionsestabletes parle eis. i ANGINAL CONGRSSYS INTERNATIONA EPTGIRAPLIAE-GRARCAE EELATINAR, pp, 12811286 Tue PRAETORIAN PREFECTURE OF AFRICA UNDER CONSTANTINE: A PHANTOM? stage in the development of the practorian prefecture, In the later third century ap this was still an office closely attached to the person of the emperor and usually shared by two men of equestrian rank; by the later fourth century there ‘were normally four prefects of senatorial rank, each operating as the head of a regionally defined prefecture and divorced from the personal service ‘of an emperor. The epigraphic evidence has played particularly important role in the debate as to whether Constantine’ reign provides a precedent for a regional, as opposed to a ministerial, praeto- rian prefecture; a debate that has in recent decades heen dominated by ‘Timothy Bares and the late André Chastagnol. It is my purpose here to offer some observations on the interpretation of this epigraphic evidence and new insights on some aspects T he reign of Constantine marks a significant It was Otto Seeck who first suggested the possi- bility that Constantine had devalved the adminis tration of the African diocese on its own to a prac. torian prefect’, He argued that this had its origin in an a hoc arrangement during the proconsulate of Africa of 1. Acadius Valerius Proculus Populo- s, it being clear from an inscription from period of office (ustally placed c. 331/333) that Valerius Proculus was given extraordinarily the right to hear appeals from all the African * History Department. Univesity College London. 1 owe thanks to the British Academy for a grant towards the costs of attending the Xi CIEGL and to Simon Corcoran, Akay CGoslan, Jen Matthews and Edmund Thomas for discussions hat have informed my arguments on a number of points. T Suc, 0, "Die Reichaprlfelaur des viewer Jabsbue Aens®, RiM 69, 1914, 33:34, and Sis, O, Regeston der Kater land Pipte fr die Jare 311 Wis 473 n.Che Voratbit 2 einer Prosapngrapiie der chritichen Kaiten Stttgatt 1919, 143 v4 RW. Bever Satwax* provinces, not just Proconsularis®. In two ident cally phrased dedications from Rome of the period 340/351 this is retrospectively considered as “having falfilled the duties of the praetorian prefecture”®, By the time (and with the poetic licence) of an inscribed epigram of no eatlier than, 351/352 this had developed into the non-techni- cal “prefect of Libya’s. Nevertheless, according to the prevailing view, Proculus’ command was the forerunner to a formally established Praetorian Prefecture of Africa that persisted until suppressed some time after Constantine's death in 337° However, given the vague (and possibly tenden- tious) quality of Proculus’ retrospective claims, it would be dangerous to see them as evidence for the post of praefectus practorio per Africam under Constantine; itis perhaps safer to consider Procu- lus’ post as one with extraordinary judicial author- ity, equivalent to that normally then restricted to the praetorian prefects, but not as the precedent for a regional prefecture* 2, CL VIN, 26521, fines 67: procons(al)provinciae) Affine) inicio sur f [els provineins Africae. Jos, AHL; Max Dit FIs Mos, J, The Prsapography ofthe Later Roman Epic LAD 260-395, Cambridge 1971 [hereafter PLRE 1], Procuis 3. CULV, 1690, line 21 and 1691, tines 17-18: perfor off co pracecuraspratori. 44 CULV, 1693 = 11S 1241: Hic bis psec patie / prac: tus vider hic Libe iden Lily jprocons. 5. Eg, Jous, AFM, The Later Roman Empie 284.602. A Savio, Feonomi, and Administrative Surey, Oxford 1964, 102. 4 rare seeptic in recent years as Sutcinn, M, “Le struture anmminstative delP pero da Diocleziano a Costantina” in ‘Wont, EB (ed), At del 2° Convegno internaionae dll Acad ‘nia Romantica Costantiniana, Pesugia 1976, 228, 233-235, 6. So ILS 1240 & 1241; Tass, NH, “Thee Notes on the Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine" JRS 15, 1925, 207; nl Asis, M'TW., “Vicar inthe Later Roman Fampite™ Hie fovia 19,1970, 598 F 4. TUBERNUC Moreover, Seeck’s original hypothesis of an independent Aftican prefecture seemed to be dis- proved by the subsequent discovery of the dedica- tion from a statue base at Tubemuc, Africa Pro: consularis, in 1924 (AE 1925, 72 = ILT 814). AS deciphered by its original publishers, Louis Poinssot and Raymond Lantier i attests four prae- torian prefects, all vii clarissimi (i.e, of senatorial rank), honouring Constantinus Has August although clearly altered from an original dedica- tion to him as nob(ifissimus) Caes(ar): Virtute clemeria memor]ando pie- ave onines afnrecellenti dn. Fl, Claw ‘io Constan}tfino iutort > 1. Pap. Pacatians Fl Ablabius [f-. [les J] ©. Annis Mberianus Nos- Hojsifuls Timonianus vii cla Irissnn pracfcti practorio Poinssot and Lantier suggested filling the era- sure of approximately eight letters after the name of the second prefect, Ablabius, with a phrase describing his relation by marriage to the imperial family, such as adfinis or necessarius Caesars, and dated it to the period of Gonstantinus iunior’s vicennalia, beginning on 1 March 336%. However, in 1950 Jean-Rémy Palanque suggested that it rep- resented one of a set of originally four dedications (one to each of the Caesars) fiom the period of uncertainty afiet Constantine had died (22 May 337), but before Constantinus had become Augustus (9 September 337)’. This scenario explained the obvious emendation from Caesar to Augustus. The erasure of the postulated phrase 7. Poses, Li Lots, Ry “Quatre préfers du piétoite com temporsins de Constantin”, CRAI 1924, 29-23% the same imetpretation is retained by Gxwsows, f, “Mutations go sgraphigues et politiques’, Fan, (ed), La glographie adminis Presi o oltique Alexandr 3 Aahomot, Strasbourg 1981, 264 Gf Chusicron. 2c, 332. For a photograph of the sione see now Git Ts Masini Ry “Alm Tebournoulc There et 83 région de Fantiquité taradive au moyen age’, MEERA 15, 2003, 285. 8. 58, On which see Paso, Ay “Notes épigraphiques I. Hin scription de Ain-Tebernok”, REA 32, 1929, 142-150 [= Yona 3 (Collection Fatomue 133), lnveelles 1973, 245-257} Bas, 0c, 148 nS; Ablabius’ daughter Olympias was betrothed 16 the young Caesar Gonstans (Aaa, Mat. 2.11.3). 9, Pasnmat, [of ESS sur He prefecture de pois au Bas Empire, Paris 1933, 18 and "Les préfets du prtoite de Const tint, Mowan, J (ed), Tayadenaa: Aflangesofets & Hew Grdjoire 2: AIPKO 10, 1950, 489-490, following Pasor, 2c 143 [cf Passat, A, LEmpie chien (325-395), Panis 1947, 74), proposed that the inseripion recorded a conference ofthe {Caesacs in Af, dated to precisely July 337, 1282 denoting Ablabius’ relationship to the imperial family was explained as a result of his falling from grace, having being dismissed by Constantius as his prefect afier Constantine's death. ‘The strange escape of Ablabius’ name itself from the erasure was aseribed to his being in only partial disgrace in the period between his dismissal in mid 337, and his eventual execution in early 338 after some months in retirement on his Bithynian estates" Accordingly Palanque identified the four prefects, as those of the Caesars of 337, Constantinus iunior, Constantius, Constans, and Dalmatius, an interpretation followed by Hugo Jones in his Later Roman Empire and John Martindale in the Praso- pography of the Later Roman Empire! ‘What breathed new life into Seeck’s hypothe- sized Aftican prefecture was André Chastagnol’s perception, in a paper of 1968, that the erasure ‘Ought to mask the name of another prefect; ie, that the inscription had originally named not four but five prefects'. Both Chastagnol and Timothy Barnes, in his New Empire of Diocletian and Con- stantine of 1982, retained Palanque's dating to the context of summer 337, While Chastagnol had hesitated to put a name to the missing prefect, Bares proposed “val. waxinys", on the basis of combining the Valerius Maximus, praetorian pre fect and consul in 327, with the recipient of CTh 13.4.2 (2 August 337), “maawes mo”! He also. suggested that the damnatio memoriae might be the result of Maximus having been the prefect of the ill-fated Caesar Dalmatius. Both Chastagnol and Barnes, therefore, counted a college of five prefects at a time when there were only four rulers: Constantinus 11, Con: stantius Il, Constans, and Dalmatius. The “excess” prefect was thus assigned to the supposed Praeto- rian Prefecture of Affica. Both in fact identified the last named, Nestorius Timonianus, as the holder of that office’ 10, Exsar, VPhiL 6, 3, 9-13; Zs 2, 40, 3; Hitson, Chron 2340 1, Jose 6, 100-102; PARE 1, 1048, 12, Cuusiacwon, A "Les pists du pretote de Constantin’, REA 70, 1968, 321-352 [aCrasincnes. A. Ite at Fie au Bas-Faepire: Eudes adinisratives et prospograpiqus. Scripta sara (Tava et recherches de I Uniewsies de Lite 3), Lille 1987, 179-210), at 333-354; four prefects only ill assumed by Av 13. Baris, ED, The New Bimgire of Dicleian and Corsa tine, Cambridge (Mass) 198, 134.135, Mt At had. previously Sris, ©, Histote die Massie Linugge 1959, 473, 1.115; ClusiACNOl, ec, 336; Bawes, 0. 195, 138, X11 CONGIRISSS INTTRNATIONALS HPCRAPIUAE GRAECAE BE LATINA, 2. AIN-RCHINE Since Timothy Barnes wrote The New Empire, an important inscription has come to light, agai in Africa Proconsularis. This text, from the attic of, a triumphal arch at Ain-Rehine in Tunisia, records the involvement, in association with the procon- sul Domitius Zenophilus, of the college of prae- torian prefects in imperially sponsored local building activity'’. At least one of the prefects mentioned (Flavius Ablabius), and maybe another (Papius Pacatianus), appears in the ‘Tubernuc inscription. In fact the number of pre- fects listed is itself not entirely beyond doubt. As first described by Naidé Ferchiou in 1980, only four prefects are explicitly attested; she reported the number of Cs (abbreviating clarissimorem) in Jine 4 as four. However, on its publication in An: née. épigraphique 1981, Chastagnol added an extra , having discerned its traces at the edge of one of the fragments! He proposed further amend- ments in his contribution to the third Africa Romana conference of 1985 and, although its structure is hard to parallel, incorporating these and other suggestions, we may reconstruct the text so": 1D. nm Ph Valerius Constantinus maximus uictor semper Aug. et HL Claudius Constantinus et Fl Tultus Constantius nobjilissimi Caesars et Fl Constfans nob, Caes 2 [oS si conse? —JINOL turriusque fori ad pultckrirem) faciem 3 fuijamque —portficatam? | IBRI fo restitud fusserunt?, eurante?) prfecana praetofrijo Valeri Maximi tur Bassi] 4. [Ejl. Ablabi Valferi Euagri? or Papi Pacatianit cecee, et iflluserium uuu. per instantiami] Domiti Zenofili we. proconsuls, inchoantfe} 5 nowant f.JVI.HOL[VO-—fiano | df dp. p JVNO}- While Zenophilus’ proconsulship ought to have finished by the time of his ordinary consul- ship of ao 333, the obviously belated addition of Constans’ name to the imperial college suggests that the work was still relatively new at his eleva 15. Pasco N. changes Tibi 2 (3), 1980, 307-912 (rom vii}, AE 1981, 878. 16, ALE 1981, 878° Ua lig alors que Feditrice sven do pouirait nete sce point 17, Giastewot, A, “Les inscriptions afficaines des prfets du prétoire de Consiantin", Misiwo, A. (ed). LAfiica romana 3, Sassati 1986, 263-273. On the structurecf Howset, My Bani sclinfion vimischer Kaisrs Untersuchungen su tnscviftenpraxis toad Batti in Sten des sestcho Dmperiuan Rosanna i dor Zeit do Drinipa’s (Histor inzohlriton 157), Seige 2001 4, nous ltonsn inguitme © que quatre: Ia photo nous tion (25 December 333), so that it may belong to as late as 332. Whether four or five prefects are attested here in the company of three or four emperors, there is certainly scope for at least one regional prefect beside three or four attached 10 emperors in the traditional manner. 3, ANTIOCH ‘More recently til, a further statue base dedica- tion to Constantinus junior by a college of praeto- rian prefects was published by Denis Peissel in 1985'%, Found at Syrian Antioch, it is a slightly simplified version in Greek of the Latin dedication of Tubernuc. Unlike that text however, it has not suffered from later tampering and erasure. ‘Thus it preserves both the title of Constantinus as nobilis- simus Caesar and the complete college of prefects as Papius Pacatianus, Flavius Ablabius, Valerius, Felix, Annius ‘Iiberianus and Nestorius ‘Timoni- anus. Thus it fills the lacuna in the Tuberuc inscription, not with Valerius Maximus as Barnes had hoped, but with Valerius Felix, whom Bames had identified as predecessor to Timonianus in the African prefecture”: ‘Tov Beométny Hueov OR KA, Keavaravrcivey rv avBpisrarov kal tmigavéovarov Kaloapa (hedera) Tn. Traxaiavds, OR. “ABASBIOs, Ova. OAM] ~Avv. TiBepiawds Kal Neo. Tiucoviavds of Naw.) (erlapxes Feissel recognised the improbability of the very same dedication, out of an assumed series of three (or four), turning up twice. On this basis he postu- Jated that they were probably connected to some significant event specific to Constantinus iunios, and, given that Felix is attested as prefect between, 333 and 336, he identified this as the Caesar's vicernalia® 4. TUBERNUC AG This re-dating back to . 1 March 336, as first suggested by Poinssot and Lantier, was accepted by Chastagnol in his Africa Romana 3 paper and has been noted by Barnes in his paper from the 18, Dacton, G: Fosth D, "Insertions inédices dy Musée eAantioche", PEMMy= 9, 1985, 421-434, with photograph, fig. 4, 421) AE 198, 823, 19. Rass, The New 20, PURE, eli, Pp 96 833,135; RW Row sana | 1283 Historia Augusta Colloguium 1984/5 and. else- where, However, neither appears to have grasped the full ramifications of this, especially as con- cerns the question of the existence of the Praeto- rian Prefecture of Africa in 336, Bames, while acknowledging that his original explanations required “fundamental revision’, and Chastagnol both remained wedded to the notion that one of the five prefects named must fill the office of pre- fect in Africa’; namely of course Valerius Felix, whose responsibility certainly included Aftica, as the legal and literary evidence makes clear. However, it ought to be unnecessary to point out that the re-dating of the inscription to ap 336 places the dedication in a period when there were not four but five emperors ruling simultaneously: one Augustus and four Caesars, For on 18 Decem- ber 335 Constantine had made Dalmatius, the son of his hal-brother Flavius Dalmatius (cos. 333), a Caesar alongside his three surviving sons. So on 1 March 336 the imperial college comprised Constantinus maximus Augustus et Con- stantinus iunior, Constantius, Constans, Dalmatius nobilissioi Caesares, ‘Thus, if Fusebius’ assertion that each of Constantine's sons had his own estab- lishment (Vita Constantini 4, 51-52) is taken to apply also to Dalmatius, then he too will have had a praetorian prefect attached to his service. That he did is highly probable, seeing that he too, like his cousins, was entrusted with the government of a portion of the Empire, namely the dioceses of Thrace and Macedonia, where he can even be shown to have been administratively active”. Consequently one of the five praetorian prefects named on the Tubernuc and Antioch inscriptions, ‘ought to belong to him. ‘This leaves no prefect floating unassigned, so that, at the very least, the supposed African prefecture must have ceased t0 exist by March 336, However, the Aftican prefec- ture has become such an article of faith that, to avoid the logic of this argument and continue to attribute to Felix the African prefecture, Bares, 2. Tuts, ID, “Regional prefectures” Sat J (ed), Hise aAugusa-Cologutan Born 1984/5, Bons 1987, 141.7; Baws, TD, *Hmesius and the Fousth Century", Ph 82, 1987, 217 53 22. Buns, TD, “Praetorian prefeets 337-361", ZPP 94, 1992, 249.251; Crasncnen, “Les ineriptions.“. 0, 270-273, Followed by Dion ., Die Spat niche Geschichewon Diocletian bis Tusinian, 284-565 s.Chr, Minchen 1989, 246. 23, PURE 1, Flix 24. PURE 1; Dalmatis 7 25. Avast Ovgo Constantin 3, 4; Awo. Bpt de Cass 41,20 Bans, The Now Emp. .¢, 87 n. 172 Klentifies C) 5, 42,7 issed at Nasu thie father Bavius Dalmatas sometizne i 497, aa pronouineement of the Caesar ACTA Xi CONGSSVS INTERNATIONALS 1284 somewhat implausibly, now prefers to push the date of the inscription back to summer 335 before Dalmatius’ accession® 5, THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE (OF CONSTANTINE’S PREFECTS André Chastagnol said of the inscription from Tubernuc “Ce document capital est encore loin, cependant, d’avoir livré tous ses secrets”, But now that the continuing close tie between the college of praetorian prefects and the college of emperors under Constantine has been established, some of the mysteries that have been vexing commentators, on these inscriptions can be unravelled, That the praetorian prefecture in this period eas considered as a college analogous to that of the emperors is clear from the inscriptions just discussed. And, just as the emperors of the Tetrat- chy represented their constitutions as having been issued in concert with all the other members of the imperial college, so the heading of the travel permit issued to the representatives of the Aftican churches in Trier shows that the office of one of the prefects, Annianus, produced its documenta- tion as if emanating from both prefects”, No problems are encountered in the discus. sions of the inscriptions listing colleges of prefects under Diocletian and Maximian, Constantine and Licinius, or Constantius and Constans. In these cases, other evidence corroborates the order of precedence followed as that of seniority by appointment’® In contrast, the precedence of the prefects presented on the Ait-Rchine arch and the dedications to Constantinus junior has caused commentators all sorts of difficulties Indeed, when only the inscription of Tubernuc was known, the precedence of Pacatianus over Ablabius was already causing problems. For both the eartiest laws attesting Ablabius as prefect (An 330) and his consulship (4p 331) precede the first legal evidence for (sn 332) and consulship (sn 332) of Pacatianus. Already in 1925 Norman Baynes had been compelled to resort to the hypothesis that Pacatianus was placed first as the 26. Buns, ePraetorian prefecs..» 0.6, 250. 27, Orns. App. 8: Petronas Arians et Fuianus Domitio Coo vicars Afi, 128. See Ciusencwon, ales préfes.m, 0c, 324, 3356; Bans Regional prefecures.», ac, 17-19; Fass, D., “Preeti cher farm plicanan, inne des acres de Ta petectare da pe foire dane au ile”, FAMBya 1, 1991, 440. prefect locally responsible for the dedication’s erection’®, While John Martindale surmised that the two names had been erroneously transposed in the Tubemnuc text, both Chastagnol and Barnes concluded that, despite the contrary indications, Pacatianus must have been appointed first because of his prior position®. Following the discoveries of the Ain-Rchine and Antioch inscriptions the confusion has only been compounded. As Chastagnol pointed out, the hypothesis of an accidental reversal of the names was made impossible by the discovery of the parallel dedication at Antioch, which con- firmed the order on the Tubernuc inscription. For it is inconceivable that the same slip could have been made in two such disparate locations. But despite this assertion he was at a loss to offer any convincing explanation of the order, He only added to his problems by his suggestion (which, need not necessarily be rejected) that the fourth prefec’s name on the Ain-Rchine inscription should be read as ra» instead of vat, and hence identified as Papius Pacatianus. [n answer to the problem of why Pacatianus should appear in ab 332 behind Flavius Ablabius but in 336 before him, he offered (i) the, admittedly rather weak, conclusion that the pair had perhaps been appointed on the very same day and thus no pre: cise seniority between them could be established, or alternatively (ii) that Ablabius had left the pre fecture at some point only to take it up again before 336; his seniority depending on the date of his second appointment’, And Chastagnol again, commenting on the inscription from Ain- Rchine, professed puzzlement at the fact that Tunius Bassus, a prefect whose career is known to have begun at the latest in 320, should appear second after Valerius Maximus whose prefecture is only attested between 327 and 333, Denis Feissel said of Pacatianus’ oscillation “Cette exception reste & expliquer, sans suffire a nos yeux a infirmer la regle (se. d’ancienneté par date de nomination)". Indeed the difficulty lies in the constant assumption that hierarchy is simply a matter of 29, Banas, sPractorian profes.» 0.6, 207 530. PLRE 1, Ablabius 4. ef Pactianus 2; Cunsmiosot, bes préfets.» 0.6, 835: Bus. The New Eni. 135, 31. Giasacner, ales inseriptions..», 0.c, 270, proposes sinnukaneous appointments;

    You might also like