Читать книгу Why Rome Fell - Michael Arnheim - Страница 68

In the three centuries before Constantine, the senatorial aristocracy had steadily been losing political power and influence. Conscious that imperial power and senatorial power were at opposite ends of a political see-saw, emperor after emperor encroached on the power of the Senate from the early Principate onward until it was left with only ceremonial functions. But though the Senate as an institution was no longer of any account, the men who comprised it continued to have a monopoly of most of the high state posts, notably provincial governorships.

In the Principate, the emperor controlled recruitment to the Senate, and the continued ascendancy of senators in government, particularly as provincial governors, and the hereditary nature of senatorial rank perpetuated the old Republican ethos. Once a man became a senator he was marked off by title, dress, and office alike from lesser mortals and from his own past life. Despite, therefore, the impotence of the Senate as a body, there was an imperial senatorial aristocracy with an esprit de corps. This aristocracy was very different, of course, from the self-perpetuating aristocracy of the Republic. Indeed, especially from the reign of Claudius (41–54), the huge bronze portals of the curia were continually welcoming new members from an ever- widening circle of provinces. New men rubbed shoulders with scions of ancient families and gradually became assimilated to the senatorial ethos. Yet at no time would the newcomers have outnumbered the more established elements, and not a few office-holders even in the third century could trace their senatorial rank back for a century or more. (Arnheim 1972, p. 32.) Among the surviving senatorial families in the third century were some ancient Republican lines, such as the Acilii Glabriones, Valerii Messallae, and even possibly the Cornelii Scipiones.

By the third century, the Senate as an institution had no power worth mentioning. Yet it was from this body, whose esprit de corps stemmed from a combination of heredity and assimilation, that the chief office-holders of the empire continued to be drawn.

At first, emperors worked through the Senate, subverting the position of the older families by introducing their own nominees into the Senate and then appointing them to governorships, thus keeping within the traditional constitutional framework.

In the course of the third century, however, this traditional framework was abandoned. Emperors, it is true, had always been able to appoint men of non-senatorial origin to high posts by introducing them into the Senate beforehand. But in the third century, there was a growing tendency to bypass the Senate by appointing non-senators directly to governorships without bothering to make them senators.

There already were precedents in the early Principate for the appointment of non-senators to high state posts. The positions of praetorian prefect and prefect of Egypt are cases in point, as are the governorships of Mauretania, Thrace, Judea, Raetia and Noricum, and smaller areas such as the Cottian and Maritime Alps and the Balearic Islands. All these provincial governorships, it is worth noting, were new posts, as emperors tended to be loath to break with tradition in any radical way.

However, in the latter half of the third century, emperors developed an appetite for appointing equestrians directly to governorships. By the end of the century, not only were most governorships open to equestrians, but they were also closed to senators.

A passage in Aurelius Victor has given rise to the belief that it was an edict issued by Gallienus (r. 253–268) that was instrumental in depriving senators of military commands. Because of the somewhat ambiguous phrasing of the passage in question, it has become the plaything of scholars. (Arnheim 1972, p. 34 ff.) There is, however, some evidence of senatorial governors exercising specifically military functions after the date of the supposed edict, for example, M. Aurelius Valentinianus in 283. (CIL.4102-03.) So, Aurelius Victor may well have been telescoping into a single “edict” a protracted development. For, there can be no doubt that there was a growing tendency in the period from Gallienus onward to appoint non-senatorial governors directly.

Among the proconsuls of Africa are to be found some of the noblest names of the age: T. Flavius Postumius Titianus, Amnius Anicius Iulianus, C. Annius Anullinus, Ceionius Rufius Volusianus. (See PLRE–Fasti.) The origins of these men contrast rather markedly with those of the governors, all praesides, of the new African and Asian provinces. The only praeses of Byzacena of known origin under the tetrarchy, (….) Junius Flavianus, was a perfectissimus. (ILAlg. I.3832.) In Tripolitana, two such praesides are known: C. Valerius Vivianus Obsequius and Aurelius Quintianus. Both of these were also non-senatorial. (AE 1929.4; VIII. 22763 = ILS 9352.) There are only three praesides of the various components of the old provinces of Africa and Asia under the tetrarchy whose origins are known: Fulvius Asticus and Aurelius Marcellus being governors of Caria and a Phrygian governor of whose name the only legible letters are Iu…. All of these were perfectissimi.

The pattern of equestrian appointments was repeated in praesidial appointments all over the Empire, with the single exception of Syria. For, though styled praesides, the three Syrian governors under the tetrarchy whose origins are known, namely L. Aelius Helvius Dionysius, Latinius Primosus, and Locrius Verinus, were men of senatorial origin.

The first of these had an ordinary senatorial career, two urban curatelae and the correctorship of Italy, before becoming praeses of Syria Coele, which post he evidently held together with appellate jurisdiction throughout the diocese of Oriens: iudex sacrarum cognitionum totius Orien(tis)…. (VI. 1675 = ILS 1212.) This combination of a governorship together with diocesan appellate jurisdiction is also found in the pre-Diocletianic case of [Vi]irius Lupus, urban prefect from 278 to 280.

Of all Dionysius’s offices, the only one which might be thought to be out of keeping with a senatorial career as it now was under Diocletian was his appointment as praeses of Syria Coele. The explanation for this anomaly may be that Dionysius was of equestrian origin and became a senator later. (Arnheim 1972, p. 42.) Even so, he was a senatorial praeses, a very rare animal indeed for the tetrarchy. But Syria also seems to have had at least one senatorial praeses under Constantine, and was one of the few Eastern provinces to change over to consulars under that emperor.

Locrius Verinus, who, like Dionysius, governed Syria under the tetrarchy, seems also to have had appellate jurisdiction at the same time over the diocese as a whole. (Symmachus Ep. 1.2.7; CJ 3.12.1.) In addition, Verinus was evidently a military governor of Syria, commanding an expedition against the Armenians. (Symmachus, Ibid.) He is probably to be identified with the Locrius Verinus who was vicar of Africa between 318 and 321 and urban prefect from 323 to 325.

These three cases leave Syria as the only province traditionally governed by senatorial governors styled “legates” (legati Augusti pro praetore) not to have been transferred to equestrian governors. This governorship was also to give birth, through the diocesan appellate jurisdiction attached to it, to the Constantinian post of Comes Orientis, as will be seen in the next chapter. (See Chapter 3.)

In addition to the governors of Syria, there are several other cases of praesides under the tetrarchy who have been claimed as noble, but none of these can be substantiated. (Arnheim 1972, page 43.) Of the 37 Western praesides datable to the tetrarchy, 27 are known to have been non-senatorial and the origins of the remaining 10 are unknown. So much for Diocletianic praesides .

In addition to the drastically pared proconsular provinces of Africa and Asia and that curious relic of a former age, Syria, the only offices left to the senatorial aristocracy under the tetrarchy were the Italian and Achaean governorships called correctorships, the urban prefecture, and the entirely ornamental ordinary consulate (i.e the position of one of the two first consuls of the year, who traditionally gave their name to the year.) Though long the popular term of reference for a legate of consular rank, the title consularis is not to be found in Italy until the reign of Constantine, who made it the official title of some Italian governorships.

In Achaea, the nobles suffered a temporary setback. L. Turranius Gratianus, a noble who was to become urban prefect in 290, was corrector of Achaea probably in the first years of the tetrarchy. (iii. 6103, cf. vi. 1128 and p. 845 = vi. 31241.)

Among the urban prefects under the tetrarchy were such men as Ceionius Varus, L. Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufinianus Bassus, L. Turranius Gratianus, Anicius Faustus, Nummius Tuscus, Aradius Rufinus, and T. Flavius Postumius Titianus. The last two were also ordinary consuls under the tetrarchy, and A. Annius Anullinus, an ordinary consul in 295, was to become urban prefect under Maxentius in 306–307. A member of the Anician house, Anicius Faustus, is known only as ordinary consul in 298, having already been a suffect consul, as is indicated by the number “II” after his name in the fasti. These noble consuls and urban prefects were representatives of families which, though now excluded from most positions of real importance, were within a generation to make their appearance in the fasti of a greatly enlarged and more significant range of posts.

The contrast between them and the Diocletianic vicars could hardly be greater, for, not surprisingly, Diocletian appointed to these new posts of his own creation men whom he could trust, men of humble origin who owed their rise to imperial goodwill. Though only six Diocletianic vicars can be traced, it is significant that four of these are known to have been of non-senatorial origin. (Lambrechts, 1937, pp. 110 ff.)

Similarly, of the five praetorian prefects whose names are known for the tetrarchy, three were of non-senatorial origin and the remaining two of unknown origin. Afranius Hannibalianus, whom Lambrechts claims as of senatorial birth, and his colleague Iulius Ascpepiodotus, pose an awkward problem. Basing himself largely on these two praetorian prefects, Lambrechts sees the period as one of “fusion” between the senatorial and equestrian orders. (Ibid.) However, though of senatorial rank from 292, neither Hannibalianus nor Asclepiodotus appears to have been of senatorial birth. Secondly, neither was appointed to an equestrian post while holding senatorial rank; the two men were already praetorian prefects when they became consuls in 292, and they appear to have continued as such through their consulships and beyond. Thirdly, and most significantly, these two are the only men of senatorial rank known to have held equestrian posts in the tetrarchy. At the same time, however, this period saw almost all the provincial governorships, hitherto the preserve of the nobles, concentrated in the hands of equestrians. What sort of fusion is this? While equestrians gain access to and, indeed, a monopoly of senatorial posts, senators are for the most part condemned to political impotence. There was no fusion between the two social groups, the nobles and equestrians, nor was there fusion between senatorial and equestrian titles, except in the cases of our two praetorian prefects. Though it was unusual to give a praetorian prefect an ordinary consulship while in office, the effect—namely the elevation of the prefect concerned to senatorial rank—was no different from that achieved by the lesser honor of the ornamenta consularia, which had long been conferred on praetorian prefects in office.

Under the tetrarchy, the two careers, the senatorial and equestrian, were quite separate, converging only at the ordinary consulate. A man of noble birth would begin his career with one or more of the traditional republican magistracies, after which the only positions open to him were the urban curatelae, the correctorships, the governorships of Syria, the proconsulates of Africa and Asia, the urban prefecture, and the ordinary consulate.

From the limited range of offices open to nobles it is clear that the senatorial cursus honorum (i.e. career) under the tetrarchy was a cul-de-sac. But, if so, why were praetorian prefects so ready to exchange their title vir eminentissimus for the clarissimate, as they did in assuming the ordinary consulate, which was still regarded as the crown of a man’s career? The consulate was, as it had been for three centuries, merely a title of honor imbued with the aura of antiquity. Though the equestrian career was now the path to positions of importance in the imperial service, Roman traditionalism continued to rank the senatorial order above the equestrian, and to regard the ordinary consulship as a precious prize. A praetorian prefect would escape the disabilities of senatorial rank which affected the nobles, since he could rise no higher. The fact that a praetorian prefect could be a clarissimus while in office should mean that, theoretically speaking, the praetorian prefecture was open to nobles. But this was not actually the case. The anomaly was, of course, the result of a conflict between ceremonial tradition and practical policy. In theory a praetorian prefect with the rank of eminentissimus was of lower rank than any clarissimus, a title borne by all senators. In fact he was more important than anyone except the emperor. To reconcile theory and practice praetorian prefects were given senatorial rank, thus producing another anomaly, which has played havoc with historians.

In her very thoroughly researched study on The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine (2015), Patricia Southern quotes my 1972 book as showing “…that senators still governed provinces as praesides and consulares well into the fourth century.” (Southern, p. 245.) The words are not mine but Patricia Southern’s, based on the Fasti (lists of office-holders), in an appendix to my book. Were there senatorial provincial governors “well into the fourth century”? Yes, but, as can be more clearly seen from Statistical Table I in my 1972 book, on “The Social Origins of Western Praesides (284–337), there were no praesides of senatorial origin in the West under Diocletian and the tetrarchy, but nine under Constantine, with fifteen being of non-senatorial origin. As for consulares, this was a title specially created by Constantine for provincial governors of senatorial rank. Statistical Table II in my 1972 book shows forty-nine of senatorial origin as against four of non-senatorial origin. Similarly, there were no vicars of senatorial origin under Diocletian and the tetrarchy but six under Constantine (Statistical Table III). Likewise, none of Diocletian’s praetorian prefects were of senatorial origin though one of Maxentius’s was and six under Constantine as against three known to be of non-senatorial origin. (Arnheim 1972, p. 216 ff.)

In sum, therefore, Diocletian practically eliminated men of senatorial origin from all positions of importance, but Constantine reversed this policy. (See Chapter 3.)