Diocletian

Nasza wiedza o zniszczeniu Biblioteki Aleksandryjskiej jest niepełna. Bardzo często jej koniec przypisuje się na panowanie Aureliana i toczone wtedy walki w Egipcie. Rzeczywiście w późnym antyku nastąpiło przesunięcie centrum Aleksandrii ze wschodnich nadmorskich dzielnic na zachód. Niemniej świadectwo Ammianusa Marcellinusa, na którym opiera się ta hipoteza, jest dosyć wątpliwe, znajomość topografii i historii Aleksandrii u tego autora pozostawia wiele do życzenia. Nie sposób jednoznacznie wskazać, podczas których wewnętrznych walk w III-IV wieku uległa zniszczeniu Biblioteka Aleksandryjska oraz czy było to efektem działań człowieka, czy żywiołów.

During the reign of Diocletian (284-305AD), Ephesus was reorganized on centralized and authoritarian lines down to the provincial level. A big part of the city was rebuilt by Constantine I. In 401AD after the Edict of Thessalonica from Emperor Theodosius I, the ruins of temple of Artemis was destroyed. The most important role of the city took place in 431AD. There, the Council of Ephesus was assembled by the Emperor Theodosius the younger to settle the contentions which had been raised in the Church by the heretical teaching of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople. Finally, in 449AD another council took place the Robber Synod, which was condemned by the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon in 451.

Quali istituzioni politiche hanno accompagnato - e in parte determinato - la straordinaria vicenda storica di Roma antica? Cosa conosciamo del loro funzionamento e della loro evoluzione? Quali sono stati i principali interrogativi della lunghissima tradizione esegetica della quale siamo debitori? In base a quali suggestioni, invece, per secoli si è reinterpretato, attualizzato e, non da ultimo, strumentalizzato il vincente – e avvincente – “modello romano” nelle sue varie declinazioni? Per quali ragioni la comprensione di concetti politici d’indubbia attualità non può prescindere dallo studio di Roma antica? Tenendo presenti questi interrogativi di fondo, l’autore propone una guida sintetica al complesso sistema politico-istituzionale romano: un sistema che, sebbene lontano, offre ancora molti spunti di riflessione

Este trabalho tem como objetivo ilustrar os principais motivos do declínio e eventual queda de um dos maiores e talvez o mais importante império do mundo ocidental. Com origem ao remoto ano de 735 a.C., ano em que se credita a fundação da cidade de Roma e sua dissolução em 476 d.C. a historia de Roma é repartida em três grandes fases, Monarquia, República e Império, que se estenderam por mais de 1200 anos, um período sem duvida bastante extenso e marcado por alterações por vezes lentas e graduais e por outras surpreendentemente abruptas.

Para os objetivos propostos no trabalho vamos focar-nos na ultima fase do Império (baixo império ou antiguidade tardia) nomeadamente a partir do período da Anarquia Militar (235-284 d.C), que costuma ser amalgamado sob o rótulo de "Crise do Século III", e que representa um ponto de viragem e momento de transformação do mundo antigo, onde as estruturas clássicas vão sendo gradualmente substituídas por outras, culminando na “queda” do então Império no ano de 476 d.C.

A abordagem feita ao tema “declínio e queda” neste trabalho é apenas superficial, sendo que qualquer dos pontos focados pode ser extensamente aprofundado, o objetivo é dar uma panorâmica geral do que se passou no Império Romano do Ocidente a partir do Sec. III e acima de tudo mostrar que a “queda” de Roma não foi um acontecimento abrupto, mas sim o resultado de seculos de transformações sociais, políticas, militares e religiosas que ocorreram em todo o Império.

Para isto, e em vez de amalgamarmos todos os acontecimentos tidos como relevantes ao longo de três séculos num texto único e contínuo o trabalho foi dividido por épocas, nomeadamente a crise do Sec. III, o Sec. IV e o Sec. V seguido de uma breve conclusão, de modo a melhor entendermos a progressão dos acontecimentos que em ultima instância levaram á dissolução do Império Romano do Ocidente.

In Luke 5:1-11, the Bible describes a miraculous event. Peter and his fishing partners caught so many fish that both of their boats started to sink. 1 We wanted to know the economic impact to Peter and his partners from this catch of fish. Using the dimensions of a boat from approximately the same time and location, we estimate that a total of 62,696 pounds of fish filled the two boats. A wage and commodity price law from 301 AD indicates this gave each of the four fishing partners 24.5-36.4 years' salary at General Laborer rates, or 12.1-18.2 years at the skilled labor rates, depending on the fish's quality. With modern financial advice saying one needs 25 years' expenses in savings to live entirely from the interest, this put Peter and his partners in good stead to leave the fishing business and work for God full time. Introduction and Background: While preparing study guides for the book of Luke, 2 we came to the story of Peter letting Jesus use his boat to preach a sermon to the people on the shores of Lake Gennesaret, another name for the Sea of Galilee 3. After He was finished using the boat, Jesus asked Peter to go back out into the lake, and let down his nets for a draw of fish. Peter decided to do it, and pulled in a record catch. He called his fishing partners over to help him, and the Bible says that both the boats were starting to sink because of the significant number of fish. After this large catch of fish, Peter and his partners decided to leave the fishing profession, and be full-time disciples.

The Final Pagan Generation shows how the generation of Romans born in the 310s adapted to their changing religious and political environments.  The included chapter introduces the religious landscape of the Roman world of the early fourth century and sets the stage for their story.

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.

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.

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.

Diocletian’s mausoleum is one of the best preserved buildings from the fourth century, which only went through some minor modifications from the time that it was built. It was built in 305 A.D. within the imperial palace, near the city of Salona, the ancient center of Illyricum. It was erected as a central peripter of an octagonal layout, the cylindrical interior of which is covered by a dome. It belongs to the Syrian - type of architecture, and was built out of massive blocks connected with metal clamps by Hellenized Egyptian builders.

In spätrömischer Zeit, die oft als „Epoche der Völkerwanderung“ gilt, wurde die Provinz Maxima Sequanorum geschaffen. Auf ihrem Gebiet finden sich zahlreiche Mauern von Befestigungen, zum einen im Norden am Oberrhein sowie am Hochrhein zwischen Basel und Bodensee, zum anderen auch südlich von dieser Linie. Schon seit dem 18. Jahrhundert hat man die spätrömischen Ruinen von Wachtürmen, Kastellen und Stadtmauern archäologisch untersucht. Oft sind sie restauriert worden. Sie gelten als interessant, finden sich in den Inventaren der Denkmalpflege, sind Ausflugsziele und werden für Besuche empfohlen. Doch: Was haben die Römer mit ihnen bezweckt? Was ist ihre geschichtliche Bedeutung?

Mauern sind stumm. Antworten suchen Historiker und Archäologen deshalb in Textzeugnissen aus dem Altertum. Was überliefern sie z.B. über die Aufgaben und die Verwendung dieser Anlagen? Lassen sich die Absichten benennen, welche zu ihrem Bau geführt haben? Wozu dienten die Fortifikationen? Und sind sie der römischen Politik und ihren Zielen tatsächlich auch dienlich gewesen? Wie sind die Mauern wahrgenommen und beurteilt worden?

Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, schauen die Autoren auch auf den Gesamtraum des späten Imperium Romanum. Anhand der Auswertung von schriftlichen und archäologischen Quellen versuchen sie insbesondere herauszuarbeiten, was die strategische Funktion der Befestigungen gewesen ist.

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).

The comitatus of the period 284-305 AD were moving structures. Diocletian and Maximian Herculius daily dumped heavy checks on dignitaries and palatine officers who followed them in their respective comitatus. The Caesares (293-305 AD) had a reduced comitatus compared to that of the Augusti, without the praetorian prefect and the chefs of the financial departments, but endowed with an officium a memoria and the offices for the correspondence. The ‘bureaucrats’ flanking the Caesares seem to have been nominated by the Augusti. The comitatus of the two Augusti appears similar to that of the Severan age, with the new magistri at the head of the palatine offices (perhaps already called scrinia). Few holders of palatine functions are known in the period 284-305. Only the two Augusti had a complete ‘central government organization chart’: one praetorian prefect each, still at the top of the civil and military administration; a ‘two-headed’ financial section (rationalis summae rei, rationalis rei privatae). At court the ‘bureaucratic’ officia were complete: memoriae, censum, a commentariis, epistularum; in the ‘judicial’ sector: libellorum; studiorum; sacrarum cognitionum. New is the a consiliis sacris. The only cursus honorum of an dignitary, who has played a palatine career during the age of Diocletian and the Tetrarchs, is C. Caelius Saturninus signo Dogmatius (CIL VI, 1704, re-examined). Some important jurists working in Diocletian's palace (Gregorius, author of the major Codex of the time, Aurelius Arcadius Charisius, magister libellorum of Diocletian, Aurelius Hermogenianus, also perhaps magister libellorum, probably praetorian prefect of Diocletian around 297-304 AD). The comitatus of the period 284-305 AD seem to represent the last, extreme facies of the palatium of the High Empire. However, the introduction of the new ritual of the adoratio, or proskýnesis, marks an irreversible change in the relationship with the prince. About the relationship between this new and fortunate ceremonial apparatus and the evolution of the consilium principis in the late consistorium, Diocletian surely has innovated in the ceremonial apparatus, but probably he didn’t create the late consistorium, a structure dated from the reorganization operated by Constantine in the years 326-330 AD.

Tarih bir bilim midir sorusu yıllardır süregelen bir tartışmadır. Bilim ''nasıl'' sorusu ile ilgilenmektedir. Tarihte ise nasıl sorusu pek az kullanılır. Kaç tarihinde, kimler arasında, kim yapmış, kim bulmuş, o dönemde kim vardı gibi sorular peki nasıl oldu bu sorusu ile sentezlenmediği sürece salt bilgi halinde kalmaktadır. Sanırım bu yüzden tarih bilim midir tartışması süregelmektedir. Bu tezi yazarken nasıl sorusunu sormaya dikkat etmeye çalıştım. İlk önce Hıristiyanlığın nasıl ortaya çıktığı, Roma toplumunda nasıl yayıldığını, kültürel olarak nasıl bir etkileşim kurduğunu anlatmaya çalıştım. Sonrasında Roma bu yeni dine nasıl bir tepki verdi ve Hıristiyanlar buna nasıl karşılık verdi sorusu üzerinden konuyu ilerletmeye çalıştık. Hıristiyanlığı Roma toplumu neden ve nasıl kabul etti, hangi özellikleri Antikçağ insanlarını cezbediyordu? Bu sorulara yanıt verebilme amacı ile bu tezin son bölümünü geçtik. Son bölümde Constantinus üzerinden Hıristiyanlığın Roma İmparatorluğu'nun bünyesinde büyümesini görmekteyiz. Hıristiyanlık, Theodosius zamanında Roma'nın resmi devlet dini olacaktı belki ama bu olayın olmasının zeminini Constantinus hazırlamaktadır. Constantinus, Hıristiyanları siyasi açıdan hedeflerine ulaşmak için mi kullandı yoksa gerçekten Hıristiyan olduğu için mi Hıristiyanlara karşı böyle bir politika izledi bu sorunun cevabını da son bölümde aramış bulunmaktayız. Tezimi hazırlarken bana yardımcı olan başta tez danışmanım sayın Prof. Dr.

This is an updated paper, using the material from the chapter in my book - Ambrosius Aurelianus and the Apocalypse of King Arthur, on the discovery of the acrostic in De Excido. Thanks to David Howlett, Alex Wolf and Keith Fitzpatrick-Mathews for our discussions concerning the original paper. Due to its significance I am publishing this paper to explain how I made the discovery, the form it takes, the sources Gildas used for the acrostic from Jerome’s Vulgate and Rufinus, and incarnation dates embedded in all of the material.

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

The paper addresses the issue of transformation of the emperor Diocletian’s mausoleum in Split into a Christian church, namely the chronology of the process itself and the circumstances under which it happened. The author tries to demonstrate that the funerary building underwent the same process of appropriation and gradual transformation, developing in several stages, just like many other similar buildings did, throughout the Roman Empire. Since the late 19th century, modern scholarship has devoted considerable attention to the problem of original layout and function of Diocletian’s mausoleum at Split. Afterlife of the building up until the 9th century was definitely understudied, partly because of a lack of comprehensive and coherent sources. Thus, it is hardly surprising that it was an American, Mark Johnson, who was the first to examine tetrarchic funerary buildings as a group (in 2009) – in terms of their functions, typology and architectural iconography. However, during the past few decades the study of relevant textual sources, as well as the number of archaeological ones, have multiplied. So has the international scholarly attention given to the process of Christianisation of pagan buildings in general (J. Alchermes, B. Brenk, J.-P. Caillet, G. Cantino Wataghin, B. Caseau, F. W. Deichmann, C. J. Goddard, J. Hahn, J. Hillner, Y. Janvier, M. J. Johnson, A. Karivieri, H.-R. Meier, H. Saradi Mendelovici, J. Vaes, B. Ward-Perkins). Stressing the new approach to relevant textual sources, the author will, at the same time, present some new material evidence in order to corroborate the claim that the pagan mausoleum in Split did not undergo any substantial modifications prior to 6th century. Furthermore, he will demonstrate that the change went through several stages.  In a first stage, the building has been obviously transformed into a relatively simple church and only afterwards it was transformed into a cathedral. There is no doubt, that this case study of a transformation of a pagan monument into a Christian one holds many important clues that could put some new light on the processes of transformation of pagan buildings into churches in general. The traditional scholarly interpretation of Croatian archaeologists, historians and historians of art, persists on a hypothesis that the Mausoleum was transformed into a cathedral (that of a runaway Salonitan archbishop) during the 7th century and that this was a one-stage transformation. Conversely, it is usually held that the emperor’s tomb suffered destruction immediately after the Edict of Milan, proclaimed in February 313, awaiting further on 640s to be re-used for a new Salonitan cathedral. However, new interpretive paradigms – that have, unfortunately, circumvented the case of Split – along with the new archaeological evidence surfacing all the time, have put the traditional interpretations to a serious test. Before mentioned innovative approaches to the problem of reuse have resulted in several important conclusions: there were three separate periods of transformation of Roman pagan and secular buildings into churches: the first phase, pertaining mainly to the 4th century, concentrated predominantly on the adaptation of profane, private buildings; the second phase reutilized public buildings of any kind; only in the third phase, during the 5th and 6th century, pagan temples and sanctuaries were finally appropriated. The case of Spalatum fits nicely into these overall results. One should also add that these studies have shown that many extremely important Roman shrines and public monuments (e.g. »Temple of Romulus« at the Roman Forum, Pantheon, Academy in Athens, Serapeum of Alexandria, temple complex on Philae near Aswan) have all been appropriated by the Church only after a long and arduous process that included several steps – the final Christianisation of respective structures being the last one. This was even more true in the case of structures forming the part of imperial estates or public property, which could not have been subjected to arbitrary destruction with impunity. As the Diocletian's palace itself was actually built on an imperial property, established as such as early as the 1st century AD and retained as part of the fiscus for centuries to come, by-passing this fact naturally resulted in some outdated theories that will now obviously have to be overcome. As a part of unalienable property of the crown, the palace at Spalatum as well as the mausoleum were under imperial supervision. Thus for any suspension of its usual function an imperial decree was necessary in order to freely dispose with the building. The removal of its pagan contents could only have taken place in several stages, during a protracted time-span: suspension of pagan cult practices, desacralization, dissolution of imperial prerogatives attached to the building, followed by the possible exemption of the parts of its inventory, ultimately its Christianisation and adaptation for a new use. The archaeological findings of the earliest post-Diocletianic phase hardly received any attention, although they seem to hold many important clues which can shed light on its later development. These useful archaeological details consist of several examples of Early Christian sculpture, found during excavation works in and around the cathedral, that can be firmly dated. Thanks to these remains, dating from the mid-6th century, we are able to date the earliest Christian adaptations of the mausoleum to the same period. On the one hand, this seems to confirm that the adaptation of octagon for Christian usage happened at least a hundred years earlier than the mid-7th century; on the other hand, it implies that the original state of the building was left intact for a much longer period of time than it has been previously hypothesized. This can be further corroborated drawing on a variety of sources, dating from 4th, 5th and 6th century (Ammianus Marcellinus, St. Ambrose of Milan, Codex Theodosianus, Codex Iustinianus, etc.). Particularly important is the evidence provided by Sidonius Apollinaris (late 480s), which seems to confirm that the emperor's mausoleum was still in function during the Gallic bishop's lifetime. Although these facts and material traces have all been common knowledge for many years, neither the data in question nor its implications for the process of Christianisation were never considered in relation to one another. Consequently, most arguments hitherto offered for the conclusions about the mentioned process were inevitably incomplete. Some other issues have also never received explanation. For example, how did the frieze on the top of the interior – bearing images of Diocletian, his wife Prisca, Hermes Psychopompos and erotes – ever survive the supposed Christian reprisal? Furthermore, how is it possible that the iconographically most important relief of the same frieze, positioned directly above the main niche (and probably representing emperor’s apotheosis), reached 16th century undamaged? All of this, again, points to the conclusion that there was no immediate or noteworthy Christian retribution at the expense of the dead emperor, namely that important parts of the mausoleum's pagan interior were left in place at least up to 6th century, when the first functional modifications took place.
To sum up, one should differentiate between the conversion of pagan mausoleum into a church and the subsequent elevation of the latter to the status of a cathedral, which was a much later and contextually different event. Under what circumstances did the former event take place? The importance of the palace during the transitional period from Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages is confirmed by its inclusion in the so-called Ravenna Cosmography, compiled by an anonymous cleric in Ravenna around 700. In it the structure is recorded as Spalathron, Spalathrum and as such included among other civitates, that is among small towns. As it is generally accepted, the data concerning these settlements and towns recorded by the Anonymous from Ravenna were based on geographical and topographical knowledge gathered prior to the 560s. Thus, it seems that the palace itself certainly retained its important position in the years prior to 6th century, only for it to be further emphasized by a settlement forming in it roughly in the early 500s. Apart from this, the existence of a town called Spalatum is attested by a number of Early Christian churches in the palace, built as early as the 6th century. The settlement, surely, predated the transition of populace from the town of Salona that, probably, happened during the 7th century. Again, the alterations in question must have happened during the 6th century and were, most surely, arranged by the then-inhabitants of the Palace. The question that remains is who initiated these large-scale interventions. Considering the well-known policy of emperor Justinian I (527-565) towards the Church after the Gothic wars of 535-555, it can be assumed that at least some parts of Diocletian's palace were ceded by the Byzantine government to the Ecclesia catholica Salonitana under archbishops Honorius II (528-547) or Peter (554-562). Thus, most of these alterations could be attributed to them, in close collaboration with the Byzantine military units stationed in the palace at the time.

Paper on the work of Sir Ronald Syme with regards to the Historia Augusta (HA), with particular attention to bogus or alias names and authorship of the HA. Also, a comparison between his work and that of Abelard Reuchlin and myself, as well as that of other I.C. members. An important paper.

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.

Nella sezione Scientifica Pavia University Press pubblica esclusivamente testi scientifici valutati e approvati dal Comitato scientifico-editoriale. I diritti di traduzione, di memorizzazione elettronica, di riproduzione e di adattamento anche parziale, con qualsiasi mezzo, sono riservati per tutti i paesi.

The True Context Of Ancient History And The Gordian Emperors (Roman Piso, 02-25-2017) This paper is about the Gordian Emperors; Gordian I, Gordian II, and Gordian III. However, it is also about much, much more. It is about their ancestors and their royal relatives, as well as statistical data and how they were related to a group of ancient authors known as the Philostratii. [I] I, and a few other researchers have discovered something which had never been considered within academia before, but which is now of extreme importance and must be considered because of what it means to research itself. Basically, what we have discovered is that there is an alternate version of history that exists, but that has not been known except to those few who did not want others to know. That other version of history changes the context in which we must now view it. And that is because what we contend, due to what has been discovered, means that only royalty had the privilege of writing anything for publication (under penalty of death); no matter what the subject matter. Most of us now know of at least some examples where history (or those recording history) had lied or deliberately misled us. And, we also now know of several examples of what we term "whitewashed" history. [II] Some of us have long wondered, how it was that there were so many people (i.e., the masses or non-royals) within such a great empire, who were illiterate. And yet, somehow, there were some people who lived an entirely different life within that empire than the majority did, people who had received a fantastic education, and who demonstrated great genius within their writings. And this, our discovery of the true nature of ancient history, gives us that answer.

Since I have been studying so many different areas of ancient history, particularly that of ancient Rome, this subject has been of some interest to me and others for a number of reasons. It has been apparent that the decline in the content of silver in Roman coinage directly related to various factors within the Roman Empire over the course of several centuries; namely, through the First Century AD/CE to the Fourth Century AD/CE. The examination of the part that coins played in history is crucial in helping to make important determinations in a number of areas of the study. For instance, the names used by various emperors, their family members, wives, and sometimes, relatives. It is for much more than simple interest or trivia that we, as historians, examine ancient coins. We find many things of interest and importance, that is, of value to us in our quest to learn more about the people and times in which they lived. Coins of the various emperors contain information. They give us portraits of the emperors which give us some idea as to how they looked. They tell us things from what they chose to include on their coins, such as symbols, gods and/or goddesses, motto and more. And, at times, we may even find examples of propaganda and historical reference. But in this instance, we are examining the silver content or the amount of silver contained within the silver denarius (or "denarii" in plural) as minted under the various emperors. Which, may tell us a few things or at least indicate or support various views of certain emperors at particular points in the historical timeline of the Roman Empire. One of the first things that comes to mind is that as the Roman Empire was expanding and more people and territory was being added to it, the demand for more coinage became a priority. And, one of the easiest ways to make silver coinage 'stretch' is to "water it down" so to speak. Or, in other words, reduce the silver content rather than the size of the coins-which, by the way, was another thing that we see happening as time went on (a good example of this can be seen in the reduction of size in both the denarius and the tetradrachm over the course of time). Coins which were produced under the Emperor Augustus were virtually as pure as they could make them, about 98 percent pure. We see, as time went on, that the silver coins minted under later emperors were reduced to 'billon' (a token amount of silver) and essentially copper coins with a silver wash to make them appear to be silver. Of course, with use, the silver washed coins would begin to show the copper as the silver wore off. Basically, the coins which were produced by the Julian Emperors remained for the most part, stable. The exception to that (and remember, we are focused primarily upon the denarius in this paper), could be coins produced for the various Roman territories in the form of coinage issued for use in the provinces. Once the rule of the Julian Emperors ended with the death of Nero, we begin to see where the rule of successive emperors changed the content of silver in their coins. The Silver Content In The Denarius Under Various Emperors*: [Again, remember that we find silver reduction in coins produced for the provinces] Augustus (ruled : 27 BC/BCE-14 AD/CE) 97/98%. Claudius (ruled : 41-54 AD/CE) 97%.

The pre-reform CONCORDIA MILITVM antoniniani of Maximianus are often miscatalogued for print and online sales. This is due in part to several errata in RIC (Vol. 5, part 2). Two hundred and seventy antoniniani were studied in order to establish an accurate list of mint marks, obverse legends, and reverse legend divisions. As the antoniniani were studied, there emerged a pattern in the reverse legend division and mint marks pointing to the order of mint output. This pattern implies that the opening of the mint of Heraclea is likely to have taken place in spring of AD 293 or thereabouts. Also, it is ventured that the CONCORDIA MILITVM antoninianus might have been minted at Siscia, a city not mentioned in RIC. It is further suggested that the CONCORDIA MILITVM coinage might have served as a testing ground for the impending coinage reform of Diocletian. The type continued to be minted virtually unchanged after the reform and could have provided a model for the standardization of the coinage.

Referee. Prima della pubblicazione, tutti i saggi sono sottoposti a peer review obbligatoria da parte di due referee. Il referaggio è a doppio anonimato. Il giudizio del referee potrà essere a) positivo, b) positivo con indicazione di modifiche, c) negativo. In caso di due referaggi nettamente contrastanti, il testo verrà inviato ad un terzo referee.

Sommario: 1.-Introduzione; 2.-La paternità ebraica e la cronologia della composizione; 3.-Lo scopo apologetico dell'opera ed il suo pubblico; 4. Analisi testuale della struttura dei tituli superstiti; 5.-La minaccia ai privilegi legali fruiti dagli ebrei come sfondo principale per la composizione della Collatio; 6.-Confronto tra la Collatio e l'Historia Augusta; 7.-Conclusioni.

This paper provides a comprehensive re-examination of the epigraphic,
legal and literary evidence for the administration of Lusitania after the provincial reforms of Diocletian until c. 340. It concentrates on the evidence for the praesides of the province of Lusitania, the vicarii of the diocesis Hispaniarum and the comites per Hispaniam attested both inside and outside the frontiers of Lusitania.

Robert Suski i. tetrarchia. cesarstwo rzymsKie od uzurpacji dioKlecjana do śmierci maKsymina dai (284-313) dojście dioklecjana do władzy W letni wieczór 283 roku (dokładniejszej daty niestety nie znamy), wojska rzymskie, na których czele stał cesarz Karus, rozłożyły się z obozem nad brzegiem Tygrysu. Trwała kampania przeciwko Persom. Rzymianie odnosili w niej od dawna niewidziane sukcesy, zajęli większą część Mezopotamii, w tym perską stolicę Ktezyfon (Salman-pak, Irak). Rzymska ofensywa nie napotykała oporu ze strony wojsk sasanidzkich gdyż w Persji trwała wojna domowa. Karus chciał podążać naprzód i śladem Aleksandra Wielkiego, podbić wschodniego sąsiada. Nie było mu to jednak dane. Według większości zachowanych źródeł w ów letni wieczór rozpętała się burza, w trakcie której cesarza zabił piorun. Śmierć Karusa była pierwszą z serii dziwnych zgonów, które utorowały drogę do tronu Dioklecjanowi. Podczas odwrotu rzymskich wojsk znad Eufratu, w listopadzie 284 roku, zmarł w nieznanych okolicznościach jeden z dwóch synów, zarazem następców Karusa, Numerian. Na oczach żołnierzy dowódca straży przybocznej imperatora, Diokles, oskarżył o morderstwo teścia zmarłego -prefekta pretorianów Flawiusza Apra. Diokles zabił prefekta, po czym został ogłoszony 20 listopada 284 roku nowym władcą, przyjmując imię Dioklecjan. Ponieważ jednak pozostał u władzy drugi syn Karusa -Karinus -wybuchła wojna domowa. Do rozstrzygającego starcia doszło w lecie 285 roku nad rzeką Margus (Wielka Morawa, Serbia). Wojska Karinusa bitwę wygrały, ale sam cesarz został zamordowany przez swoich oficerów, podobno dlatego, że uwodził ich żony. Choć dokładne okoliczności śmierci władcy i jego dwóch synów pozostają niejasne, to wąt-

The palace in Split, as well as his other palaces like those in Antioch and Nicomedia, which are not preserved, is completely dif- ferent from all those other imperial residences. They were rationally organ- ized, like a military camp with walled towers and walls. The architecture of the temples of Diocletian‘s Palace shows exceptional skill of emperor’s builders, their origins traced to Asia Minor and Egypt, and workforce which had an excellent knowledge of the earlier large architectural examples that served as a role model.

When the Roman Empire was faced by many difficulties in the third century, which were affecting the internal stability of the realm, drastic reforms were needed in order to overcome the prevalent crisis. The imperial administration was enlarged by the installation of the dioceses, although it is not sure if it was Diocletian or his successor Constantine the Great who created them. The dioceses were in fact groups of bundled adjacent provinces, which created a larger geographical, but most of all an administrative unit. Although there are some studies concerning the reasoning behind the creation of the dioceses, there are almost none which examine dioceses in-depth. The aim of this study is to show that several factors were influential in the decision-making process and tries to answer the central research question: Why were particular factors influential in the decision-making process behind the creation of the dioceses of Asiana and Africa? By answering this question a hypothesis will be created which will at least provide a nuanced idea of the obstacles that had to be faced by the Romans in order to create the administrative layer of dioceses and will hopefully be of value for the debate concerning the dioceses.

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.

Apparently combining a sense of personal reprieve from his troubles with a collective relief after the Decian persecution, Dionysius the Great’s tenth festal epistle (pre-Easter 262) sounds distinctly panegyrical notes over the victory and peace of the emperor Gallienus. The author of this paper asks whether we have signs in this letter of a publicised narration of recent imperial affairs culminating in the successes of a worthy, even holy emperor. If so, what does this tell us, first, about the situation of the Church at the time (the 260s), and, second, what might it indicate about the structuring of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, which (at least in its later editions, and with other supplements) finishes with the defeats of unworthy imperial contenders and the victories of Constantine as the Church’s new protector.

Phronema 30:2 (2015), 37-68

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.

The collapsing of the Tetrarchy system during the wars of 306-313 brought some new issues and changes to the whole Roman Empire, mainly about the new role of Christianity and the different state ideology and politics Constantine I started to follow. But the Roman Army was not unconnected to these changes and new policies connected to organization of troops and frontier lines altered the old Diocletianic models. Constantine I was a great builder of towers, military roads, fortified bridges and forts all along the Rhine limes whom he cared of so much during his reign. But after his death in 337 his younger son Constans I followed her steps in the West with a vigorous series of military campaigns across the frontier, punishing and controlling the barbarians on the other side both in Britain and Gaul. He created a new military rank too, for endorsing his father´s policy and put to safety more efficiently the borders all along his domains in the West: the comes rei militaris

Con este libro, resultado de bastantes años de trabajo, se pretende ofrecer a la Romanística una visión completa de la producción jurídica de Diocleciano, que ha llegado hasta nosotros. Desde el primer momento fuimos conscientes de la dificultad que entrañaba nuestro empeño, pues basta con hojear el Código justinianeo, para observar que los rescriptos dados por este emperador, con su colega Maximiano, ocupan un espacio muy considerable en la gran mayoría de los títulos. Al concluir nuestra labor hemos podido comprobar que el número de constituciones dioclecianeas es de 1216. Sólo 9 de ellas no están recogidas en el Codex, sino en la Romanarum et Mosaicarum Legum Collatio. Por razones de economía editorial no ha sido posible incluir en este Conspectus los textos latinos, como habría sido deseable. Por ello se debe advertir al lector que la numeración corresponde a la undécima edición del Codex Justinianus de Paul Krüger (Berlín 1954). Las constituciones tomadas de la Collatio se han consultado en la base de datos B.I.A... El estilo de los rescriptos dioclecianeos es conciso, preciso y nada pomposo, muy semejante al de los juristas clásicos. En algunas ocasiones aparecen los argumentos enunciados como regulae, pero lo más frecuente es que describan el caso, dictando la solución y su fundamentación jurídica, en la más castiza tradición de los responsa… En este Conspectus se incluyen dos Edicta de Diocleciano y Maximiano, extraídos de la Collatio (Coll.6.4 y 15.3), cuya redacción responde fielmente a los patrones estilísticos de la nueva etapa: son los referentes al matrimonio y a la represión de los maniqueos…