Before Constantine

CHAPTER II.3.2A

POLITICALHISTORICAL

SURVEY, c.250-518

G e o f f r e y g r e a t r e x

INTRODUCTION

THIS period marks the gradual emergence of a powerful independent state which

is now generally referred to by historians as the Byzantine Empire (although to

contemporaries it was never known as such). To attempt to pinpoint the precise

moment of the foundation of this state is an impossible task: when, for

instance, Constantine I dedicated the new city of Constantinople in 330, he ruled

the entire Roman empire, East and West. Although the empire was partitioned

among his sons upon his death, it was reunited again briefly in 350 and 392

before being partitioned once more in 395. That division, between the sons of

Theodosios I, turned out to be final: in 476 the western Roman emperor, Romulus

Augustulus, was overthrown and not replaced. It was also during the fifth century

that the eastern Roman empire started to develop independently, evolving

its own institutions, rituals, and style of government. Whether one would

wish to label the empire at this early stage 'Byzantine' rather than 'Roman'

is doubtful, however, given the extent of continuity with the earlier Roman

empire.

THE E A S T E R N ROMAN EMPIRE

BEFORE CONSTANTINE

From the reign of Augustus (27 BCE-14 CE) onwards the whole Roman Empire fell

under the rule of one man. Already vast in extent then, it continued to expand

for another century, up to the reign of Trajan (98-117). Not surprisingly, from the

very outset, emperors saw fit to delegate powers on occasion to certain individuals,

usually a relative, often the intended successor. Since approximately one-third of

the legions were stationed in the east, where they faced the Parthians and then,

from 226, the Persians, the only states whose power could match Rome's, these

representatives frequently visited the region: Augustus' grandson Gaius went to the

eastern frontier to negotiate with the Parthians in 2 CE, while Germanicus, Tiberius'

adopted son, visited Syria and the Near East in 17-19. The underlying strength

and wealth of the region were demonstrated by Vespasian's successful bid for the

throne from Syria in 69. It was again to the east that Lucius Verus, the first full

co-emperor, set off in 161 in order to respond to a Parthian invasion (Millar 1993:

33> 53~4) 73-9) m -13)· In the third century, the burdens of imperial responsibility

grew heavier, partly on account of prolonged warfare all along the frontiers of the

empire, and partly because of internal instability within it: in response to regional

crises, beleaguered armies and provinces acclaimed their own emperors, some of

whom reigned without interference for several years. The most successful in a series

of 'soldier-emperors', Diocletian (284-305), took the step of institutionalizing the

division of power among emperors. Initially he took one colleague, Maximian, who

governed the western half of the empire, while he himself took command of the

eastern from his base at Nikomedeia. In the face of continuing difficulties, two

further colleagues were chosen in 293, Constantius (I) for Maximian and Galerius

for Diocletian. They were to be junior partners in what is known as the Tetrarchy;

they were called Caesars, and Diocletian's intention was that, upon the retirement of

the two senior emperors (the Augusti), the Caesars should take their place, selecting

two further individuals as their own successors. Galerius, after inflicting a notable

defeat on the Persians in 297, took up residence at Thessalonike; parts of his palace

there survive to the present day (Chastagnol 1994b; Carrie and Rousselle 1999:

1 4 5 - 9).

Despite the multiplicity of emperors, the empire remained united. Laws issued

by one emperor were implemented throughout the empire (Jones 1964: 41; Carrie

and Rousselle 1999:148). The reign of Diocletian and his colleagues brought great

change to the administration of the empire: provinces were reduced in size, thereby

approximately doubling their number, while the number of soldiers was increased.

Partly as a result of the multiplication of emperors, and partly in an effort to ensure

a sufficient quantity of supplies for the enlarged army, the apparatus of government

grew. The focus on the military also led to a definitive separation of military

and civilian offices (Jones 1964: 37-60, Campbell 2005:120-6, Carrie and Rouselle

1999:160-90, Garnsey and Humfress 2001:36-41). Important reforms were likewise

introduced at various stages to the manner in which taxes were raised, culminating

in the establishment of the 'indiction' cycle in 312, a fifteen-year-long period during

which the amount due (the indiction) would remain constant; so familiar did this

rhythm become over the years that the unit was soon taken up as a means of dating

(Jones 1964: 61-70; Carrie 1994; Carrie and Rouselle 1999:190-207).

THE D Y N A S T Y OF CONSTANTINE I (3 0 6 - 6 3)

In 305 Diocletian and Maximian retired, ceding their positions to Galerius and

Constantius (I) respectively. Only one year later, following the death of Constantius,

dynastic loyalties, always a powerful factor in imperial successions, came back

into play: Constantius' army at York acclaimed his son, Constantine, as Augustus,

thereby disturbing Diocletian's system. Within a few years, the number of Augusti

had proliferated and civil war had broken out again. It was Constantine who

emerged the victor in the West, defeating Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian

bridge in 312. In the following year he came to terms with the sole remaining

ruler in the East, Licinius, but relations soon worsened. Despite the conclusion of

another entente in 317, Constantine attacked and defeated his rival in 324, so gaining

control of the entire empire (Barnes 1981:28-77; Cameron 2005:90-4). Work began

immediately on a new city on the Bosporos, on the site of Byzantium, to be renamed

Constantinople after the emperor; the new foundation was dedicated in 330. In

establishing this new city, Constantine was following the example of emperors such

as Galerius and Diocletian, who had built palaces and other imperial buildings at

their seats of government in Thessalonike and Nikomedeia, yet it appears that from

the start he envisaged something more ambitious: the city was to be a new Rome,

equipped with its own senate in addition to the official buildings usually associated

with a tetrarchic centre. In addition, extra grain was brought in from Egypt to feed

the expanding population (Dagron 1974:13-47; Mango 1990: 25-6).

The pace of administrative change did not slacken under Constantine. The various

departments of government which dealt with matters such as imperial correspondence

and archives were all placed under the control of the magister officiorum>

the master of offices, who thus ranked as one of the highest officials of state (Clauss

1980). The bureaux charged with legal matters came under the authority of the

quaestor sacri palatii, the quaestor of the sacred palace (Harries 1988). The ministers

of imperial finances were henceforth known as the comes sacrarum largitionum

(count of the sacred largesses) and the comes return privatarum (count of the private

fortune) (Delmaire 1995:119-47). The praetorian prefect remained one of the most

important officials of state, functioning in effect as the emperor's deputy in legal

and administrative matters. In a major break with previous practice, however, the

prefects no longer had any military authority (Southern 2001: 257). Instead, the

command of the army was split between a magister peditum (master of infantry)

and a magister equitum (master of cavalry), a system which would, over the fifth

century, evolve into a series of regional high commands, each under a magister

militum (master of soldiers). This group of ministers, along with senior military

commanders, comprised the consistorium (the consistory), a body which met to

advise the emperor on policy decisions. In the matter of imperial finances, the

most notable development was the creation of a stable gold coin, the solidus, which

nevertheless failed to halt the inflationary pressures which had afflicted the empire

under the tetrarchs and earlier (Jones 1964:97-109; Barnes 1981:255-8; Bagnall 1985;

Hendy 1985: 462-7; Carrie and Rousselle 1999: 259-63; Chastagnol 1994a: 197-202;

Kelly 2006:185-92).

The most fundamental change to the empire under Constantine, however, was

in the field of religion. While the timing and nature of Constantine's conversion

remain a subject of dispute, there can be no doubting its impact (Bremmer 2006).

Christians in the empire, hitherto a sporadically persecuted group, were accorded

first tolerance, and then later considerable privileges (at least in the case of church

officials). An extensive programme of church-building was undertaken, while gold

and other precious items were plundered from pagan temples. But the pace of

Christianization must not be exaggerated. As one might expect with such a profound

change, the conversion of the empire took place over generations. Adherents

of the new religion could be accorded favourable treatment, but there was no

question initially of forcible conversions. Many high officials and most of the army

remained pagan up until the end of the fourth century. It was not until 391 that

an emperor (Theodosios I) not only banned pagan sacrifices and rituals but also

forbade entry into temples and shrines. Even then, his son Arkadios hesitated to

intervene in Gaza, even after Christians there appealed to him to put an end to

pagan practices in the late 390s; it was likewise zealous Christians, rather than

imperial forces, who stormed the Serapaeum in Alexandria in c.392. Paganism

remained a potent force in many parts of the eastern empire right up until the

sixth century: under Justinian energetic measures were required to purge pagans

prominent at the imperial court, while in the countryside thousands remained to be

converted by missionaries sent out by the emperor (Jones 1964:344-5; Barnes 1994:

nos. VII-VIII; Trombley 1993-4:187-245; Brown 1995: 29-54; Fowden 1998; Brown

1998; Salzman 2002; Mitchell 2007: 238-51; Errington 2006: 212-59).

The conversion of the emperor had other important repercussions. Henceforth

it was to him that Christians turned to resolve their differences, a role which

Constantine did not shirk. The emperor, keen to uphold correct Christian belief and

to ensure unity among his subjects, did not hesitate to intervene in disputes about

matters of doctrine and procedure; sometimes he summoned a council of bishops

to decide a point, as most notably at the first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325,

but on other occasions he pronounced judgement himself. The Roman emperor

came thus to function not only as the secular ruler of the empire but also as the

head of the Church; Constantine, according to his biographer Eusebios, even saw

himself as a bishop, and did not hesitate to address bishops on matters of the faith

himself. In the West, as the power of the emperor declined in the fifth century,

that of the bishop of Rome increased; but in the East, the emperor continued to be

the final arbiter of theological disputes, convening ecumenical councils and even

issuing edicts on points of doctrine (Frend 1972: 54-62; Barnes 1981: 208-44; Millar

1977: 577-607; Lane Fox 1986: 609-62; Dagron 1996:141-8; Drake 2006).

The development of a centralized bureaucracy—the extent of which must not

be unduly exaggerated (cf. Carrie and Rousselle 1999:190)—as well as the growth

in the size of the army entailed a tightening up of tax collection procedures in the

empire. New taxes were created; senators were now made liable to certain taxes for

the first time. But even as such extra sources of revenue were being tapped by the

state, others were being removed. Officials of the Church were soon absolved of any

requirement to pay taxes. Members of the imperial court and administration were

likewise exempted from taxation. Unsurprisingly, both the Church and the government

bureaucracy became popular choices for wealthy individuals throughout the

empire, eager to avoid their tax obligations. This in turn had the consequence of

undermining the apparatus of government in the cities of the empire; for the local

elites of these cities had traditionally acted as the administrators of their communities,

governing as a city council, while simultaneously ensuring the collection of

taxes for the central government. As the impositions of the government increased,

fewer individuals were prepared to maintain this role, especially when they could

be held liable for shortfalls in the taxes due. Instead, they sought to escape from

their community and to gain refuge either in the Church or the bureaucracy, a

trend which the government attempted sporadically and largely unsuccessfldly to

resist. The pace of this development, commonly known as the 'flight of the curiales\

was uneven, and its impact has sometimes been over-emphasized: cities remained

a crucial element in the administration of the empire right up until the early

seventh century. Their councils undoubtedly declined in importance as a result of

the policies of Constantine and his successors, but other elements emerged to take

their place (such as provincial governors and unofficial groups of local notables,

including the bishop), and local building work certainly did continue to be carried

out (especially the construction of churches) (Heather 1994; Ward-Perkins 1998;

Liebeschuetz 2000; Lavan 2001; Liebeschuetz 2001).

In May 337, as he set off eastwards to campaign against Persia, Constantine

died near Nikomedeia. Almost four months later, three of his sons, Constantine

(II), Constantius, and Constans divided the Roman empire among themselves,

eliminating all but two of Constantine's other living relatives in the process. Constantius

(II) took over the eastern empire and spent much of the early years of his

reign (337-61) defending his eastern frontiers against the Sassanian Persians (Barnes

1981: 261-3; Blockley 1992:14-17; Hunt 1998:1-5; Burgess 2008). When his brother

Constans, however, who had come to rule the entire western empire after the death

of Constantine II in 340, was defeated and killed in a coup by Magnentius in 350,

Constantius reacted swiftly. Appointing his relative Gallus Caesar in the East, he

advanced on Italy, defeating Magnentius' forces in a bloody encounter at Mursa in

Pannonia in 351; the usurper himself was eliminated two years later. Constantius

remained in the West for most of the 350s, campaigning in Gaul and on the Danube

(Barnes 1993:101-8, 221-2; Hunt 1998: 5-37). Suspicious of the loyalty of Gallus, he

undermined his position and arranged his execution in 354. However, realizing the

importance of the presence of an imperial figure in defending the Gallic provinces,

he raised up Gallus' younger brother Julian to the rank of Caesar in late 355 and

himself returned to the East in 360. While the renewal of war with the Persians distracted

Constantius, Julian then seized the opportunity to rebel, claiming the title of

Augustus for himself (Bowersock 1978: 46-54; Matthews 1989: 81-114). Constantius

therefore set off from Antioch to meet the threat in October 361, but died soon

afterwards of natural causes. Julian thus became sole emperor without striking a

blow, and at once sought to revive the fortunes of pagans throughout the empire.

His efforts, cut short after only eighteen months by his untimely death, enjoyed only

limited success, frustrated on the one hand by the stubborn opposition of Christians,

and on the other by the fact that his own brand of paganism was markedly

different from that of the majority who remained faithful to the traditional cults

(Bowersock 1978:55-93; Fowden 1998:543-8). In mid-362 Julian left Constantinople

for Antioch, from where he set out the following spring to exact revenge on the

Persians for their attacks on the eastern provinces. He died in battle in June 363 as

he led his army back to Roman territory, having failed in his objective of capturing

the Persian city of Ctesiphon (Matthews 1989:130-79).

Although neither Constantius nor Julian spent very long in Constantinople during

their reigns—both in fact spent more time in Antioch (Dagron 1974: 78-82)—

the city continued to develop, steadily taking on the attributes of an imperial capital.

It was here that Constantine was buried in 337, as was Constantius in 361. The

construction of an extensive series of aqueducts was initiated under Constantius,

while Julian increased the harbour capacity of the city. Constantius also allowed the

appointment of a prefect for the city for the first time, as well as greatly increasing

the number of senators (Heather 1994; Dagron 1974: 119-46; Mango 1990: 37-42;

Hunt 1998: 37-9; Errington 2006:142-68). In church affairs, Constantius followed

in his father's footsteps, at any rate in the way he actively intervened in disputes,

and to some extent in the line he took. This involved steady support for an Arian

interpretation of the faith, putting him at odds with the patriarch of Alexandria,

Athanasios, as well as many western bishops (see also III.15.1 Byzantine theology).

The outspoken Athanasios was consequently condemned by the Church and the

emperor on several occasions, although these decisions were not always acted on

immediately or indeed successfully. Emperors had to remain aware of the limits of

their power, and in their search for doctrinal unity tended to adjust their approach

according to the circumstances of the moment as well as to the nature of the region

with which they were dealing: Egypt in particular had a tendency to refuse to submit

to the imperial line (Frend 1972:59,71-4; Barnes 1993:165-75; Pietri 1995; Chadwick

1998:561-73).

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16