The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• The Works of Edward Gibbon
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
• Chapter Xvi
• Chapter Xvii
• Chapter Xviii
• Chapter Xix
• Chapter Xx
• Chapter Xxi
• Appendix Additional Notes By the Editor
• 1.: The Rescript of Antoninus Concerning the Christians — ( P. 30 )
• 2.: Exile of Marcellus and Eusebius, Bishops of Rome — ( P. 77 )
• 3.: Persecutions of the Christians In the First and Second Centuries, — ( C. Xvi .)
• 4.: Augusteum and Forum of Constantine — ( P. 104-106 ) 1
• 5.: The New Monarchy — ( C. Xvii .)
• 6.: Dioceses and Provinces — ( P. 126 Sqq. )
• 7.: The Organisation of the Army Under the New System — ( P. 136 Sqq. )
• 8.: Protectores and Domestici — ( P. 150 )
• 9.: The Tragedy of Fausta and Crispus — ( P. 175 Sqq. )
• 10.: Divisions of the Empire, 293 to 378 — ( P. 183 , 196 )
• 11.: The Sarmatians — ( P. 186 )
• 12.: Battle of Singara — ( P. 200 )
• 13.: Sources and Chronology of Armenian History Under Trdat and His Successors — ( C. Xix .)
• 14.: Constantine and Christianity — ( C. Xx .)
• 15.: Ecclesiastical Geography — ( P. 314 )

10.

DIVISIONS OF THE EMPIRE, 293 to 378 — (

P. 183

,

196

)

The chief interest of the divisions of the Empire in 335 and 337-8 lies in their connection with the general subject of the lines of geographical division drawn by imperial partitions in the century between Diocletian and Arcadius. The divisions in the first half of this period ( 285-338) present various difficulties, from the circumstance that the statements of our best authorities are not sufficiently precise, and those of secondary authorities are often divergent. Here I would lay stress upon a principle which has not been sufficiently considered. Later writers were accustomed to certain stereotyped lines of division which had been fixed by the partitions of (364 and) 395; and they were determined by these in interpreting the geographical phrases of earlier writers. It is therefore especially important in this case to consider the testimonies of the earlier writers apart from later exegesis. It is also clear that names like Illyricum (which came to be distinguished into the diocese [Western] and the prefecture [Eastern]), Thrace (which might mean either the diocese or the province, or might bear, as in Anon. Val., its old sense, covering the four provinces south of Mount Haemus), Gaul (which might include Spain and Britain), were very likely to mislead into false and various explanations.

I. Division of 293. (1) a, Maximian: Italy, Africa, Spain; b, Constantius: Gaul and Britain. (2) c, Diocletian: Dioceses of Pontus and the East, including Egypt; d, Galerius: Dioceses of Pannonia, Dacia, Macedonia, Thrace, and Asia.

As to (1), a passage in the De Mort., our earliest authority, is quite decisive; in c. 8, Africa vel ( = et) Hispania, are assigned to Maximian. Against this, we cannot entertain Julian’s ascription of Spain to Constantius (Or. ii. p. 65); an error which would easily arise from the inclusion (under Constantine) of Spain in the Prefecture of Gaul. Under Diocletian the division of the west is drawn across the map, by Alps and Pyrenees, not downward. (Victor, Cæs., 39, 30, does not mention Spain; his Galliae might = Gaul + Britain, or = Gaul + Britain + Spain. Praxagoras mentions neither Africa nor Spain.) As to (2), our authorities are Praxagoras and Victor, and the truth has been obscured by following the statements of later writers. Praxagoras assigns to Galerius τη̂ς τε Ἑλλάδος καὶ τη̂ς κάτω Ἀσίας καὶ Θρᾴκης; to Diocletian τη̂ς τε Βιθυνίας καὶ τη̂ς Λιβύης καὶ τη̂ς Αἰγύπτου. Now in this enumeration a rough principle may be observed. He enumerates countries which mark the lines of division. Less well informed as to the west, he does not commit himself about Spain. Beginning at the north, he gives Britain to Constantius (Κ Βρετανίας ἐβασίλ.), and Italy to Maximian; implying that Maximian’s realm began, where Constantius’s ended. Thus Gaul is implicitly assigned to Constantius; Africa to Maximian. From the extreme south, Diocletian’s part reaches to Bithynia, which implies the Dioceses of Pontus and the East; while Thrace and Asia (ἡ κάτω Ἀσία, to designate the diocese, not the province) mark the line of partition on the side of Galerius, whose realm in the other direction stretches, it is implied, to Italy. (Hellas is mentioned, doubtless, because the writer was an Athenian.) There is no good reason for rejecting this evidence; the same assignment of Asia is repeated (on the same authority) at the later division of 315. It is at least not contradicted by the not precise statement of Aur. Victor (ib.): Illyrica ora adusque Ponti fretum Galerio; cetera Valerius retentavit. Later writers, accustomed to the later division of the Prefectures of Illyricum and the East, could hardly realise this cross division; the utmost their imaginations could compass would be to connect Thrace with Illyricum instead of Asia Minor. That the statesmen of Diocletian’s age did not regard the Propontis as a necessary geographical boundary, and that a part of Asia could be as easily attached to Europe as a part of Europe could be attached to Asia, is proved by the next division on incontestably good evidence.

II. 305. (1) a, Severus: Maximian’s portion with Diocese of Pannonia; b, Constantius: as before, with Spain (?). (2) c, Maximin: Egypt, the East; Pontus (?) except Bithynia; d, Galerius: as before, with Bithynia, but without Pannonia.

Anon. Val. iii. 5. Maximino datum est orientis imperium: Galerius sibi Illyricum Thracias et Bithyniam tenuit. (Thraciæ: the point of the plural is probably to include Moesia ii. and Scythia; as, in 18, the singular excludes them. See below.) Victor, with his usual vagueness (40, 1), gives Italy to Severus; quæ Iouius obtinuerat to Maximin. Anon. Val. 4, 9. Severo Pannoniæ et Italiæ urbes et Africæ contigerunt.

III. 306 (on death of Constantius). (1) a, Constantine: Britain and Gaul; b, Severus (Maxentius): as before, with Spain. (2) c, d, As before.

It is clear that, since (according to Anon. Val.) the Cæsar Severus had Diocese of Pannonia, he could not have also had Spain; for his realm would have been quite out of proportion to that of the Augustus Constantius. We may therefore assume that on Maximian’s resignation Constantius took over Spain, but that after his death it was claimed by Severus, as Augustus, and actually held for a time by Maxentius.

IV. 314. Constantine now has all the dominions that from 293 to 305 were held by Constantius, Maximian, and Galerius, with the exception of Thrace. Licinius has Diocletian’s part, along with Thrace. The important point in this arrangement is the beginning of an administrative connection between Thrace and the East; they would now be governed by the same Prætorian Prefect.

Praxagoras (F.H.G. iv. p. 3): Ἑλλάδος τε καὶ Μακεδονιὰς καὶ τη̂ς κάτω (ita leg. pro κατὰ) Ἀσίας were acquired by Constantine. Anon. Val. 18; Licinius: orientem, Asiam, Thraciam, Moesiam, minorem Scythiam.

V. 335. [The arrangement of this year was not a division of the Empire, but partly a confirmation of the assignment of administrative spheres, already made to his sons, and partly a new assignment of administrations to his nephews. Constantine did not directly sacrifice the unity of the Empire, which was still realised in his own sovereignty, though he adopted a policy which might at any moment endanger it. “Von einer Erbtheilung ist dabei nicht die Rede, sondern nur von einem Antheil an der Verwaltung” (Ranke, Weltgeschichte, iv. 2, 270).]

(1) Constantine had Gaul, Britain, and Spain (= the later “Prefecture of Gaul”); (2) Constantius, Asia and Egypt; (3) Constans, Italy, Africa, and Illyricum (including Thrace). For Delmatius the ripa Gothica was cut off from the portion of Constans; Hannibalian had (at the expense of Constantius) a “kingdom” composed of principalities in the regions of Pontus and Armenia.1

The question is, what were the limits of the province of Delmatius? Is ripa Gothica [I have not seen noticed a parallel expression in De Mortibus, 17, where Galerius reaches Nicomedia, per circuitum ripæ strigæ, where the emendation Istricæ is doubtless right] to be interpreted as Eastern Illyricum (= dioceses of Dacia, Macedonia, and Thrace)? So Schiller (ii. 235), Ranke, Burckhardt, and others. But the Epitome of Victor (41, 20) includes in the share of Constans “Dalmatia, Thrace, Macedonia, and Achaia.” Ranke supposes that Dalmatiam here is a scribe’s mistake for Dalmatius, and that we should interpret the ripa Gothica of the Anonymous by the words thus amended. If we adopted this view, it would be better to read: Dalmaci <;us Daci=;am Thraciam Macedoniam Achaiamque.

But a view that necessitates tampering with a text which in itself gives perfect sense cannot be accepted as satisfactory. There is a further objection here. The text of the Epitome agrees remarkably with the statement of Zonaras, xiii. 5, which assigns to Constans Italy, Africa, Sicily and the islands, Illyricum, Macedonia, “Achaia, with the Peloponnesus.” The Epitome was not a direct source of Zonaras; but the agreement is explained by the fact that both (the author of the Epitome directly, Zonaras indirectly) drew from a common source (probably Ammianus: cp. L. Jeep, Quellenunt. zu den gr. Kirchenhistorikern, p. 67). Thus the assumption of a textual error in the Epitome means the assumption of an error in the text of an earlier authority; and therefore becomes decidedly hazardous and unconvincing. Add to this that the interpretation of ripa Gothica to include or to imply Macedonia and Greece is extremely forced. The natural meaning of the expression is: the provinces of Dacia, Moesia I. and II. and Scythia and perhaps Pannonia and Noricum. The actual testimonies of the two best authorities, that are explicit, concur in showing that the main division of 335 was tripartite — between the Emperor’s three sons — and that only subsidiary (though highly responsible) posts in frontier regions were given to the two nephews. This view is also more in accordance with Zosimus, ii. 39, who distinctly marks a triple division.2 Nor is it contradicted by Eusebius, Panegyr. ch. iii., which only proves that Delmatius (unlike Hannibalian) was a Cæsar, and thus co-ordinate in dignity with his cousins.

VI. 337-8. (1) Constantius: as before, along with the kingdom of Hannibalian, and the four provinces of D. Thrace, south of Haemus;3 (2) Constans: as before, along with ripa Gothica, including Moesia II. and Scythia; and without (?) Raetia or part of Africa; (3) Constantine: as before, along with some part of Africa or of the Diocese of Italy (?).

We have not data for determining the details of this partition. The problem was to divide the provinces held by the two nephews into three parts. To secure geographical continuity Constans would naturally take the ripa Gothica, and hand over some part of his western dominions to Constantine; he likewise resigned Thrace south of Haemus (not Moesia and Scythia, I infer from Zos. ii. 39, who gives to Constans and Constantine τὰ περὶ τὸν Εὔξεινον πόντον) to Constantius. The war which broke out between Constans and Constantine was probably connected with the question of the territorial compensation to be received by the latter; seeing that Zos. ii. 41, ascribes it to a dispute about Africa and Italy.

Gibbon (with Tillemont) has accepted from the Chron. Alex. of Eutychius a curious notice (under Ol. 279) that Constantine the younger reigned for a year at Constantinople. The only possible support I can see for this statement must be derived from the passage of Zosimus. He groups together the lands of Constantine and Constans, as if they ruled jointly over an undivided realm, in which he includes “the regions of the Euxine.” A defender of Eutychius might urge that for some months at least Constans did not assert his independence, that his elder brother may have governed for him, and that the transference of Thrace to Constantius may have been subsequent. But without further evidence it is better to leave the Eutychian notice aside; and I may call attention to Ranke’s remark that there is a tendency in the account of Zosimus, who desiring to justify Magnentius is hostile to Constans and anxious to throw on him the blame for the war with Constantine.

The division of 338 is given as follows in the Life of St. Artemius (Acta Sanct., Oct. 20) — a document which merits more criticism than it has received: —

(1) Constantine: αἰ ἄνω Γαλλίαι καὶ τὰ ἐπέκεινα Ἄλπεων (an expression often used to include Spain), αἰ τε Βρεττανικαὶ νη̂σοι (Britain and the Orcades, etc.? cp. Eutropius 7, 13, and the interpolation in the Laterculus of Polemius Silvius, see above, App. 6), καὶ ἔως τον̂ ὲσπερίου ὠκεανον̂. (2) Constans: αἰ κάτω Γαλλίαι ἤγουν αὶ Ἰταλίαι (Italy with its adjuncts, Sicily, Africa, etc.), καὶ αὐτη ἡ Ῥώμη. (3) Constantius: τὸ τη̂ς ἀνατολη̂ς μέρος, Βυζάντιον, τὰ ἀπὸ τον̂ Ἰλλυρικον̂ (implying that Illyricum went to Constans) μέχρι τη̂ς Προποντίδος ὁπόσα ὑπήκοα τοɩ̂ς Ῥωμαίοις τήν τε Συρίαν καὶ Παλαιστίνην καὶ Μεσοποταμίαν καὶ Αἴγυπτον καὶ τὰς νήσους ἁπάσας.

The Vita Artemii (the Greek text was first published by A. Mai in Spicilegium Romanum, vol. iv.) was composed by “John the Monk,” and professes to be compiled from the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius and some other writers. Eusebius, Socrates, and Theodoret are also referred to. There is evidence that Philostorgius was largely used, and consequently the Life of Artemius becomes an important mine of material for the restoration of the history of that Arian writer. The story of Gallus is, I presume, derived from him, and I conjecture that the statement of the partition of the Empire among the sons of Constantine comes from the same source. If so, both passages ultimately depend on Eunapius, who was doubtless the source of Philostorgius.

From the same source is certainly derived the statement of the partition in Constantine Porphyrogennetos, de Them., ii. 9 (ed. Bonn, p. 57). The portion of Constantine is described in exactly the same words as in the Vita Artemii (τὰς ἄνω Γαλλίας καὶ τὰ ἐπέκεινα Ἀλπἐων ἒως τον̂ ἑσπερίου Ὠκεανον̂) except that instead of “the British Isles” the imperial geographer says “as far as the city of Canterbury itself” (Κάνταβριν). The expression αὶ κάτω Γαλλἰαι is also used, but, in expanding the concise expressions of his source, Constantine falls into error and assigns Illyricum and Greece to Constantius.

VII. 364. (1) Valentinian i.: Prefectures of Gaul, and of Italy and Illyricum; (2) Valens: Prefecture of the East, including D. of Thrace.

VIII. 378. (1) Gratian and Valentinian ii.: Prefectures of Gaul and of Italy, including Western Illyricum: (2) Theodosius: Prefecture of the East, along with Dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia (Soz. vii. 4).

This partition, which drew a new line of division between East and West, probably established definitely the system of four prefectures which Zosimus attributed to the express enactment of Constantine. Up to this time three pr. prefects seem to have been the rule, four an exception. But now, instead of adding Eastern Illyricum to the large Prefecture of the East, Theodosius instituted a new Prefecture.

[1 ]Chron. Pasch., p. 532, ed. B. gives Mesopotamia to Delmatius (Godefroy accepted the statement). I conjecture that Μεσοποταμίαν may have arisen from Μυσιαν παραποταμιαν = Moesiam ripensem.

[2 ]He pretends to mark it as it existed at the death of Constantine (before the destruction of Delmatius); though he seems really to give the subsequent division.

[3 ]The dates in the early edicts of the C. Th. are not certain enough to permit us to draw an inference from xi. 1, 4 (professedly issued by Constantius at Thessalonica in November 337).