THE SUMMER OF BLOOD: The "Great Massacre" of 337

48 Pages·2011·6.72 MB·English

THE SUMMER OF BLOOD: The "Great Massacre" of 337 and the Promotion of the Sons of
Constantine
Author(s): R. W. BURGESS
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 62 (2008), pp. 5-51
Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788042 .
Accessed: 16/05/2012 13:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Dumbarton Oaks Papers.
http://www.jstor.org
THE SUMMER OF BLOOD
The "GreaMt assacre" of 337a nd theP romotion of theS ons ofC onstantine
R. W. BURGESS
To Tim Barnes, in thefirsty ear ofh is retirementfrom teaching: a giant's shoulders, indeed.
I. Introduction
Although Constantine was the firstC hristian emperor, fact that these days would be considered am iracle," HA
his reigwn asm arredb ym ore familiabl loodshedt hant hat Claud. 2.6).1 This massacre of them ale descendants of
of any other Roman emperor: he himself was involved to Theodora,t heh alfb rotherasn dm ost of theh alfn ephews
one degree or another in the deaths of his wife's father, ofC onstantine, iso ne of them ost intriguing personal epi
his wife's brother, his half sister'sh usband, his eldest son, sodes in the history of theR oman emperors. The problem
his wife, and another half sister'sh usband and son (Max is that no surviving ancient source directly describes this
imian,M axentius, Bassianus, Crispus, Fausta, Licinius, event; we have hints, rumors, accusations, tendentious
and Licinius II, respectively; see stemma, p. 6).M oreover, coverups, vague statements that readers were obviously
soon after his death most of the male descendants of meant to understand, and accounts doctored forp olitical
Constantius I, his father, and Theodora, Constantius's or religious purposes. Such source material has created
second wife and Constantine s stepmother and half sister numerous problems form odern scholars, with the result
in-law,w ere assassinated in a plot that involved at least that virtually every aspect of them assacre is contested:
one of his sons. The author of the the names of those who met their end, the dates of their
late-fourth-century
HistoriaA ugustah ad thisb loodyr ecordi nm indw hen he deaths, whether there was one massacre or two, who
eulogized Claudius II, supposed ancestor ofC onstantine: prompted the assassinations, and the reason(s) behind
"[Claudius] amauit propinquos; res nostris temporibus them. Indeed, there are almost asm any scenarios as there
comparanda miraculo" ("Claudius loved his relatives, a are scholarsw ho have theorized them, usually because the
is treated as an interlude between more
episode merely
and narratives.2
important military, political, religious
I should like to thank Tim Barnes, Cathy King, and Pierre-Louis Malosse
for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper, asw ell as the editors and
the two anonymous referees for their detailed and helpful comments and 1 Of course, since "Pollio" was supposed to have been writing between
suggestions. As always I alone am responsible for keeping what they told 293 and 305, when Constantius I was still caesar {HA Claud. 1.1, 3.1,
me to remove or fix. I should also like to thank Joel Kalvesmaki for help 9.9,10.7,13.2), he could not have known about events as late as 337, but
with the formidable technical problems presented by my original text. this is just another of the many subtle and not so subtle chronological
I should like to thank the following for permission to reproduce the slipsm ade by the anonymous late-fourth-century author. For a short but
photographs: Classical Numismatic Group (nos. ,2 ,3,4,8,14), Harlan J. excellent general introduction to this problem, see A. Chastagnol, His
Berk Ltd (no. 5),D r. Paul Rynearson (Vcoins) (no. 11),L anz Numismatik toireA uguste: Les empereurs romains des Ile et lile si?cles (Paris, 1994),
= LHS Numismatik (nos. 12,16,18), Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger (nos. 9, IX-XXXIV, C-CXXXI.
15,17), H. D. Rauch GmbH (nos. 6,19, 21, 23), Tkalec AG (no. 7), Fritz 2 The major studies are A. Olivetti, "Sulle stragi di Costantinopoli
Rudolf K?nker M?nzenhandlung (no. 10),M arc Breitsprecher ofA ncient succedute alla morte di Costantino il grande," RFIC 43 (1915): 67-79;
Imports Inc. (Vcoins) (no. 26), Imperial Coins & Artifacts (Vcoins) (no. X. Lucien-Brun, "Constance II et lem assacre des princes," BullBud?,
20), Roman Lode (Vcoins) (nos. 22,24), and M?nzen & Medaillen GmbH 4th series, Lettres d'humanit? 32 (1973): 585-602; R. Klein, "Die
(no.2 5). I shoulda lso liket o thanMk arianaR eynoldsf ora llh erh elpw ith K?mpfe um die Nachfolge nach dem Tode Constantins des Gro?en,"
the intricacies involved in preparing these photos for publication. ByzF6 (1979): 101-50 (reprinted in idem, Roma versa per aevum: Aus
Conventions for dates: 337-38 = 337 to 338, 337 / 38 = 337 or 338. gew?hlte Schriften zur heidnischen und christlichen Sp?tantike, ed. R. von
DOP 62
6 R.W. Burgess
Stemma The Descendants of Constantius
?= (i) Maximian* (2) = Eutropia
helena = (1) constantius (2) = theodora Fausta* Maxentius*
= constantine i
fl. DALMATiust Julius CONSTANTiusf Hannibalianus Constantia Eutropia Anastasia
(i)=Galla =Liciniusr =Virius =Bassianus*
I NI epotianus?t
DALMATIUSf HANNIBALIANUSf Licinius II*
= Constantina Nepotianus
four other cousins of Juli?nt sont daughter gallus
= constantius ii =Constantina
(2)=Basilina
Minervina=(i) constantine i (2)=Fausta*
Julian=Helena
constantine h constantius h Constantina constans Helena
Crispus*
(1) =daughter (1)=hannibalianus =julian
(2) =Eusebia (2)=Gallus
*executed by Constantine
tassassinated in 337
sources: Barnes, New Empire, 265-16 6, and PLRE 1:1129.
Haehlingand .S cherberich [Hildesheim, 1999], 1-49); andM. Di Maio, Sept expos?s suivis de discussions, ed. A. Dihle (Geneva, 1989), 120-25;
Jr., and D. W.-H. Arnold, "Per Vim, Per Caedem, Per Bellum: A Study T. Gr?newald, Constantinus Maximus Augustus: Herrschaftspropaganda in
ofM urder and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Year 337 A.D.," Byzantion 62 der zeitgen?ssischen ?berlieferung (Stuttgart, 1990), 153;P . Cara, "Aspetti
(1992): 158-211 (on which, see I. Tantillo, "Filostorgio e la tradizione sul politici e religiosi del conflitto per la successione di Costantino," RSCI
testamento di Costantino," Athenaeum 88 [2000]: 559-63). A selection 47 (!993): 39-5?; I?T antino, La prima orazione di Giuliano a Costanzo:
of recent important interpretations can be found (in chronological order) Introduzione, traduzione e commento (Rome, 1997), 228-39; D. Hunt,
in E. Stein, Histoire du bas-empire, vol. , trans, and aug. J.-R. Palanque "The Successors of Constantine," in The Cambridge Ancient History,
(Paris, 1959), 131-32 and 484-85; A. H. M.Jones, The Later Roman Empire, vol. 13,T he Late Empire, A.D. 337-42$, ed. Av. Cameron and P. Garnsey
284-602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey (Oxford, 1964), (Cambridge, 1998), 3-4; B. Bleckmann, "Der B?rgerkrieg zwischen Con
112;R . MacMullen, Constantine (New York, 1969), 224-25; A. Piganiol, stantin II. und Constans (340 n. Chr.)," Historia 52 (2003): 225-26 . ,
L'empire chr?tien (Paris, 1972), 82-83; R- Browning, The Emperor Julian 241-43; D. S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180-3?$ (New York,
(London, 1975), 34-35; JW. . Leedom, "Constantius II: Three Revisions," 2004), 460-63; and R. M. Frakes, "The Dynasty of Constantine down
Byzantion 48 (1978): 132-36; RIC 8:4-7; G. W. Bowersock, Julian the to 363," in The Cambridge Companion to theA ge ofC onstantine, ed. .
Apostate (Cambridge, MA, 1978), 22-23; T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Lenski (Cambridge, 2006), 98-99. For lists of earlier accounts and discus
Eusebius (Cambridge, MA, 1981), 261-62; E. G. Gonzalez, "Observaciones sions, seeO livetti (above), 76-77; Lucien-Brun (above), 595-99; Di Maio
sobre un emperador cristiano: Fl. Jul. Constante," Lucentum 3 (1984): and Arnold (above), 161-62 n. 24; H. Chantraine, Die Nachfolgeordnung
268-70; C. Pietri, "La politique de Constance II: Un premier 'C?saro Constantins des Gro?en (Mainz-Stuttgart, 1992), 5-9.
papisme' ou Vimitatio Constantini?" inL Eglise et l'empire au IVe si?cle:
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood 7
|
To make any headway in this matter is therefore not two wives, Helena and Theodora,3 byw hom he had had
easy, and the complexities of the evidence necessitate a one son (Constantine), and three sons and three daugh
complex analysis. My approach is as follows. ters, respectively (see the stemma). The two eldest sons
After establishing the general historical context for of Constantine himself, Crispus and Constantine II,
the events of the summer of 337 (section II and Appen had been proclaimed caesar on March 317, the former
dix 1),I beginw ith thep roblemo f establishing" what perhaps around twenty years of age at the time, the lat
happened," in particular the sequence of events and the ter less than a year.4 His next son, Constantius II, was
responsibilitfyo rt hem( sectionI II). This beginsw ith a proclaimed caesar on 8N ovember 324, when only seven
lengthya nd detailed analysiso f the survivingl iterary years old.5 Shortly afterward, in the spring or summer of
sources, since they are abundant and complex, as well 326,C rispus was executed and sufferedd amnatio memo
as the epigraphical sources (III.i). The next subsection riae? Eight years later, on 25D ecember 333,h is youngest
presentst heh intsa nd clueso fferedb y thec oinageo f the son, Constans, then either ten or thirteen, was invested
period immediately preceding the promotion of Con with the rank of caesar asw ell.7 By 332C onstantine had
stantine s sons (III.2 and figures). This section concludes probably reached or was just about to reach his sixtieth
with a summary and synthesis that establishes the rela birthday (i.e., his sixty-firsty ear). He knew that his sons
tive importance and reliability of the foregoing evidence were very young and inexperienced and that he might
(III.3). From this a number of general conclusions are not survive form any more years to provide them with
drawn that focus very much on the question of instiga the experience they needed before some of them were
tion: was it the army alone or was itC onstantius?
The next section is concerned for them ost part with 3 PLRE 1:410-11, s.v. "Helena 3," and 1:895, s.v. "Theodora 1";T . D.
thec hronologyo f thee ventso f the summero f 337f rom Barnes, The New Empire ofD iocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, MA,
the death of Constantine to the return of Constantius 1982), 33-34,36,37; D. Kienast, R?mische Kaisertabelle: Grundz?ge einer
to after the with his brothers. r?mischen Kaiser chronologie, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt, 1996), 281-82.
Constantinople meeting
4 PLRE 1:233, s-v-" Crispus 4," and 1:223, s.v. "Constantinus 3";B arnes,
Since the date of the death ofC onstantine isw ell attested
New Empire, 7, 44-45, 73; Kienast, Kaisertabelle, 305-6, 310. Crispus
in the sources, I begin with the only other known date, was the son of Constantines firstw ife Minervina; his other sons were
that of the promotion of Constantine's sons to augus the offspring of Fausta, his second wife and half sister of Theodora. Con
tus (IV.i). Then follow two short sections outlining stantine II was not born on 7 August (pace Barnes and Kienast). The sole
the numerous of modern scholars for the source for this date, them id-fifth-century calendar of Polemius Silvius
suggestions (CIL i2:27i andInscriptionesItaliae 13.2, ed. A. Degrassi [Rome, 1963],
chronology of the massacre (IV.2) and the statements 271), is the result of scribal error and hypercorrection: "Constantini"
of the survivingl iterarys ources (IV .3). The legal,e pi was written for "Constanti(i)" at some point in the tradition, and then
and evidence is considered next, "minoris" was added later to distinguish him from Constantine I,w hose
gburatp whiitch, few peaxpayctr oolorg sicpaelc ific conclusions (IV. 4). I then basir tchand abye wsaese n alfrreoamdy thleism teidd-. f7o Aurutghu-scte ntuisr yth e bciraltehnddaayr ooff C Foinlostcaanlutsi us (CILII ,
pass on to other types of evidence that have not been i2:255 and 270 , a Inscr. Ital. 13.2:253). See Aso Inscr. Ital. 13.2:492. The
considered before: a victory title (IV.5), the coins (IV.6, names "Constantinus" and "Constantius" are frequently confused in
Appendix 2,a ndf iguresa),n d thei tinerarie(VIs 7, Appen Greek and Latin texts. Indeed, one of the three manuscripts of Filo
calus's calendar (V) has a mistaken "Constantini" corrected to "Con
dices 3 and 4, and them ap). All the above description stantii" (see the photo in Inscr. Ital. 13.2:252) and both Polemius Silvius
and analysis is then brought together in a hypothetical and Filocalus have "Constantini" for "Constanti" opposite 31M arch,
reconstruction (V) and a general conclusion of major the birthday of Constantius I (CIL i2:26o-6i and Inscr. Ital. 13.2:243
points (VI). and 266). The "Natales caesarum" section in Filocalus, though, has the
correct "Constanti" (CIL i2:255). Besides, the public celebration of Con
stantine I Is birthday would never have survived his damnatio memoriae
(CTh 11.12.1i)n tot hem iddle of thef ifthc entury.
5 PLRE 1:226, s.v. "Constantius 8"; Barnes, New Empire (n. 3 above),
8, 45; Kienast, Kaisertabelle, 314.
6 Barnes, New Empire, 8 n. 30,84; Kienast, Kaiser tabelle, 306. In gen
II. Prolegomena
eral, see P. Guthrie, "The Execution ofC rispus," Phoenix 20 (1966): 325-31;
H. A. Pohlsander, "Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic End," Historia
By 332C onstantineh ad clearlyd ecided thatt hee mpire 33 (1984): 79-106; and Frakes, "Dynasty" (n. 2 above), 94-95.
and imperiapl owerw ould be sharedb y both branches 7 PLRE 1:220, s.v. "Constans 3"; Barnes, New Empire, 8, 45; Kienast,
of his father's family, the descendants of Constantius Is Kaiser tab elle, 312.
DOP 62
8 R.W . Burgess
I
promoted to augustus and full imperial power. He needed Constantine's own daughter Constantina16 was married
aw ay ofp rovidingt hemw ith thep roperg uidancea nd the to her half cousin Hannibalianus,17 the son of Flavius Dal
empire with strong leadership in case he died too soon. matius, thus linking the two sides of the family even more
For most of Constantine s reign the surviving sons of closely (see stemma). On 18 September 335,n ot quite two
Theodora (hisf atherss econdw ife) had been kept away years after the promotion of Constans, Hannibalianus
from the center of power in virtual exile?Dalmatius and his elder brother, Dalmatius,18 were honored with
inT olosa (modernT oulouse) andJ uliusC onstantius in imperial promotions, Dalmatius to the rank of caesar
Corinth.8 This distancing has been attributed toH elena, with thea dded titleo fn obilissimuasn dH annibalianus to
who could onlyh ave seen thec hildreno fh erh usband s the nobilissimate.19 The latterw as also given the unique
second wife as rivals to her own son and grandsons.9 title of "rex regum et gentium Ponticarum."20
She leftf orP alestine in 326,a ftert hed eaths ofC rispus It seems almost certain thatC onstantine planned, at
and Fausta,10 and itw as in that year,w hile Constantine some future date, when theyw ere old enough and mature
himself was in Italy celebrating the end of his vicennalia, enough, to promote the two eldest caesars, Constantine II
that Constantius Gallus was born to Julius Constan and Constantius, to augusti, probably both at once. Thus,
tius and Galla in Etruria, not in Corinth. Helena died upon Constantine's retirement or death, two augusti
early in 329 and soon afterward Constantine began to and two caesars would succeed him in a recreated tetrar
bringh is survivingt woh alf brothersi ntop ower.T hey chy,i ntimatelyli nkedb yb lood andm arriage. Itw ould
were honoredw ith consulshipsi n 333a nd 33$a ndw ith seem thatC onstantine believed that dynastic succession
ancient yet venerable titles, censor for Flavius Dalmatius (hencet her eturno fh is halfb rothersa nd theirf amilies
(consul [cos.] 333)11 in 333o r early 334,12 and patr?cius and to favor and the appointment ofD almatius) would solve
nobilissimus for Julius Constantius (cos. 335),13 the first thei nherenptr oblemst hath ad doomed theD iocletianic
by 335a nd thel atteri nS eptember3 35w, hen his nephews system.21 In addition the return of Theodora's children
Dalmatius and Hannibalianus were to caesar
promoted
and rex respectively (see below).14 These were swift and 16 PLRE 1:222, s.v. "Constantina 2";K ienast, Kaisertabelle, 318.
high honorsA. daughtero fJ uliusC onstantius and his 17 PLRE 1:407, s.v. "Hannibalianus 2" Barnes, New Empire, 43; Kie
wife Galla was married to her half cousin Constantius II, nast, Kaisertabelle, 308. His name is spelled "Hanniballianus" on the
the son of Constantine, in 335/3615 and that same year coinage.
18 PLRE 1:241, s.v. "Dalmatius 7"; Barnes, New Empire, 8,45; Kienast,
Kaiser tabelle, 307. His name is for them ost part spelled "Delmatius" on
the coinage (see Figs. 4, 24-25).
8 Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius ( . 2 above), 251. The elder Hanni 19 Barnes, New Empire, 8, n. 28; Kienast, Kaisertabelle, 307 and 308.
balianus (PERE 1:407, s.v. "Hannibalianus 1";B arnes, New Empire, 37), 20 PLRE 1:407, s.v. "Hannibalianus 2"; Kienast, Kaisertabelle, 308.
Constantine's third half brother, seems to have died before ca. 333-35. For the title, seeA nonymus Valesianus 6.35 and Polemius Silvius, Later
9 An implicit connection between Helena and Julius Constantius's culus 1.63 (MGH,^4 9, Chron. min. 1:522). He is simply called "rex" on
time inC orinth ism ade in a letter of Julian's to the Corinthians, quoted the coinage, which was struck only in Constantinople (RIC 7:584 and
by Libanius {Or. 14.29-30), inw hich Julian described S. Helena as his 589-90, nos. 100 [silver] and 145-48 [bronze]).
father's "wicked stepmother" ( a a). 21 For Constantine's tetrarchie plans, see Chantraine, Nachfolgeord
10 Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 221. nung ( . 2 above), 3-25. Most recently P. Cara ("La successione di Costan
11 Consul prior, ahead of Domitius Zenophilus, former corrector tino,"A evum 67 [1993]: 173-80) has argued on the basis of Constantine's
Siciliae, consularis Numidiae, and proconsul Achaeae, Asiae, and Afri promotion of and apparent favoritism toward his eldest son that Con
cae {PLRE 1:993, s.v. "Zenophilus," and Barnes, New Empire, 106-7): stantine intended for only Constantine II to succeed him as augustus,
see Roger S. Bagnali et al., Consuls of theL aterRoman Empire (Atlanta, while the other caesars would remain as theyw ere, thus preserving the
1987), 200-201. imperial college as ith ad existed between 333 and 335w ith one augustus
12 PLRE 1:240-41, s.v. "Dalmatius 6"; Barnes, New Empire, 105. and three caesars (on this, see Bleckmann, "B?rgerkrieg" [ . above]: 226
13 Also consul prior ahead of one who outranked him, Ceionius Rufius . 3). Caras hypothesis?first argued from the coinage as long ago as
Asaslun.bvldis.n ,"p uA2rs0la,b4e if-n5eu.cf tsou rsm 14eur,r" bacino dnf srBuolamarrn iset sh,e C Nvaemewrpy a nEeinmaedp, iorfe, ph riso 1c0oc8on)ns: usuls elaeAr B cahgyaneeaaareli {PeaLtnR daEl .A , sCioa1en:,3 7, bI11Iy99 h46m96aod ?ri s(es b eeee tCnohba arvncai aaetsseead[vra eb nob lvoyyene ],gat rewpsr.o. Atf1sh7u a3nna dn ah.r mie2sse )u,nn lttbe aexhlft eo reopelu drteotrsbhtalne e mkpcoeusdlb.l eliacCgFauoitrneiso stnt,a (nCCtoooinnufsss Rt taaInCnt taiinnu7eds ) init
should therefore come as no surprise that he was able to take a victory
14 PLRE 1:226, s.v. "Constantius 7"; Barnes, New Empire, 108. title before any of his caesarean colleagues. He had after all resided in
15 PLRE 1:1037, s.v. "Anonyma 1";B arnes, New Empire, 45; Kienast, Trier from 328 (after eleven years as caesar) and won the titleA lamanni
Kaiser tab elle, 517. cus defending his territory in ca. 330,w hile his brothers remained with
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood 9
|
intot hef oldw ould greatlyr educe ifn ot eliminatea ny steppedi nb eforeh ew as able top ut thef inishingt ouches
problem of future attempts at usurpation on their part. on his preparations.
Constantines plans forH annibalianus are unknown, On 22M ay 337w, hile preparing for a campaign
but his title is clearly related to a Roman desire to control against the Persians, Constantine died in an imperial
the territoryo f theA rmenian kings.22 Constantines half villa near Charax, an emporion not far fromN icomedia
brothers were no doubt intended to play an important in Bithynia.25 A fifty-year tetrarchie precedent clearly
role in the concilium as senior statesmen, advisors, and prescribed that the proclamation of a new member of the
perhaps even regents to the young emperors, since the imperial college or the promotion of a caesar required
eldest surviving son, Constantine II, was just shy of his the presence of an augustus or the active approval of the
twenty-firstb irthday when Constantine did eventually senior augustus. Any situation inw hich either of these
die inM ay 337h, avingb een born in the summero f 316. two rules had been violated had resulted in the offend
In addition, Constantines trusted praetorian prefect, ing caesar or augustus's being regarded as a usurper and
Flavius Ablabius, was assigned to Constantius after often also resulted in open civilw ar. When Constantine
Constantines death (probably in Constantines will), died, theo nly reigninga ugustusd ied asw ell. This gave
a inw hich he was intended to act as Constantine II and Constantius no constitutional means
relationship clearly
guardian and advisor; Ablabiuss daughter, Olympias, of becoming augustus, apart from the earlier precedent of
had earlier been betrothed to Constans.23 proclamation by the army and acceptance by the senate
For Constantine, the stage was set: his legacy and and people of Rome.26 No doubt each caesar worried
policies would live on in an unassailable college of Chris about allowing this to happen unilaterally, because the
tian emperors, all related by blood and bym arriage, all other might regard it as attempted usurpation. In addi
ablyl ookeda ftebr ye ldera ndw iser counsel,a ndp rotected tion, therew as no guarantee that the two young caesars
by a tetrarchie system of regional emperors and caesars. would remain content, or that their armies would allow
Even specific territories had been set aside as spheres of them to remain content, as caesars in the ensuing con
activity for the four caesars in 33s24 From Constantines fusion. Even more problematic was the division of the
point of view the plan was perfect. Unfortunately, Fate empire. Although certain territorial arrangements had
been made for the four caesars in 335,t herew as no reason
to believe that thesew ould continue after the
their father until 335 (Constantius's eleventh year as caesar) and from necessarily
death of Constantine.27
335,w hen theyw ere not with him, they did not reside in areas that were
witness to hostilities (see Barnes, New Empire [n. 3 above], 84-86). Nor
should it come as any surprise that special silver coins were minted for
Constantine Us vicennalia, am ilestone that none of the others reached 25 PLRE 1:224, s.v. "Constantinus 4"; Barnes, New Empire, 8, 80;
within Constantines lifetime. Second, Cara has not considered all the Kienast, Kaisertabelle, 301. For Constantine's death, see R. W. Burgess,
available numismatic evidence. Even a brief study of the gold and silver Studies inE usebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography, Hist"o ria Ein
coinsm inted betweent hee nd of 333a ndm id-337 (Appendix1 b elow) zelschrift 135 (Stuttgart, 1999), 221-32, and R. W. Burgess, or
demonstrates conclusively that Constantine II and Constantius were a e ?T he Location and Circumstances of Constantine's Death,"
closely linked on the coinage; were treated as equals, even as a pair, in JTS, n.s., 50 (1999): 153-61.
spite of Constantine II's seniority; and were together promoted in that 26 See J.-R. Palanque, "Coll?gialit? et partages dans l'empire romain
medium farm ore than their junior colleagues. This evidence, and that aux IVe et Ve si?cles," REA 46 (1944): 54-55. See also N. Lenski, "The
argued by Chantraine (which overlaps somewhat), indicate that Con Reign of Constantine," in Lenski, Cambridge Companion (n. 2 above),
stantine was preparing the army and civil service, them ajor audience for 62 and Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 28-29 (with respect to Con
them essage of these coins, for the eventual succession of both sons as his stantine's accession).
cecstomuihalcel ice nnegtoeshesns,r.o c erwees 1 o,b8 u-orl1votd8hte Ahro eu nhrgeasihvns edCr(b storbehnoeeets lColthehwaesnars nt itnnrah.ue aa igv1nue2e s1 tI)b.Iu e,s e,a[n as b atotshvh weee ]a ,lss o en1nge9ievo asrentn d at suue2gar4luvl,sy itfn uiggs t m.h 4eae mn =cd baR sehIerC a vaemo 8fop Snrtighes e mm2tt7ahain kteteeye s r IBc Io,aw nirwtncqh hlueeuosind ,t eeNwd eo tcwuhlel ed"a tr Esr moetnhahptsaai ivrtede esi t,"d h c eof( 1nd i9intv8rai.ols Jlliyluoe nlmdi a aen oe ftt; h (1tOe9h riAeen. n,e P tm12ai.orn1pBe9niW Ar)?.e n-e w2isaI0tan.A s twHhtaiheetn ehdme v toOeawsnr tit.s c ,ue 2Cb i.moo9srn4apdyBsoit-srnaC tnat)ath nea tt
22 See G. Wirth, "Hannibalien: Anmerkungen zur Geschichte eines caesar under a tetrarchie system, lost the dioceses of Italia, Africa, and
?berfl?ssigen K?nigs," BJ190 (1990): 201-32. Pann?nia toC onstans, who also gained one of Dalmatius's two dioceses
23 PLRE 1:642, s.vO. lympias 1";B arnes, Constantine and Eusebius [n. (Moesia) from what would have been Constantius's territory. Constan
2 above], 252; Bernes, New Empire, 45; Kienast, Kaisertabelle, 313. tius, focused as he had been on the eastern frontier since 335,w ould have
24 Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 251-52 and idem,N ew Empire, been happy to have surrendered the difficult Danubian frontier to Con
198. stans. Constantine II, on the other hand, was less happy to have lost Italy,
DOP 62
10 R.W.Burgess
I
However, despite the obvious need for a quick end two,w hose livesw ere saved (so it is said) because of youth
to the interregnum following Constantine's death, more (Juliano) r expectedd eath fromi llness( Gallus),35al l the
than threem onths passed before Constantine's sonsw ere male descendants of Constantius I and Theodora had
finally able tom eet in Pann?nia, accept promotion to been assassinated inw hat Libanius later called
augustus together in one place, and establish their ter ("the great massacre," Or. 18.10). Such a slaughter
ritorial divisions and seniority. This then completed on within thef amilyof ther eigningim periafla milyis u nique
9 September, two of the new augusti returned to their in the annals of Roman history.
while Constans remained in the area to continue
capitals,
the activities there Constantius
military begun by (see
below, section IV.7). Unmentioned in any of the official
proclamations of this happy event were Dalmatius, the
fourth caesar, and his brotherH annibalianus, not because
III. The Circumstancesa nd
theyh ad been passed over forp romotion, but because they Responsibility
had been assassinated. III.i. The and Evidence
Literary Epigraphic
And these two were not the ones to die. Con
only
stantine's two surviving half brothers, Flavius Dalma No source provides an account of them assacre and only
tius and Julius Constantius, also met their deaths, as did a few saya nythings pecifica bout it at all:w e have no
Julius Constantius s eldest son,w hose name isu nknown; chronology, no context, no causes, no coherent narrative.
four other cousins of Dalmatius, whose identities are No one even statesw here it took In some situations
place.
also unknown;28 Flavius Optatus, patr?cius and consul this is a result of certain authors' simply not knowing any
of334?29 Flavius Ablabius, praetorian prefect of the East details; in other cases, however, our sources did know the
and consul of 331;30 and "many nobles," who probably details and either assumed that their readers knew them as
included Aemilius Magnus Arborius31 and possibly Virius well orw ere unwilling (or unable) to provide them. Even
Nepotianus and Flavius Felicianus.32 Constantius Gallus Julian, the closestw e have to an eyewitness, avoids describ
and Julian, the two youngest sons of Julius Constantius,33 ing the actual events by quoting a line from Euripides
were not killed but were spared and raised apart from {Oreste1s4 ):" Whys houldI now,a s thoughf roma tragedy,
the imperial family,J ulian under the care of his maternal recount the unspeakable horrors?" (AdAth. 270D). We
grandmother and the bishop Eusebius inN icomedia, and
Gallus in Ephesus; when theyw ere older, both were sent
furtherin toe xilef ors ixy earst o an imperiavl illa called in 350 he was put up as emperor in Rome against Magnentius (for less
Macellum inC appadocia.34 With the exception of these than a month), but ifh e was born in 337 he could not have been more
than twelve years old at the time, a fact that no source comments upon.
He is depicted on his coinage as a bearded young man, but that means
as he later demonstrated (for the division of the empire and its results, little in the context since it is the same portrait the mint used for Con
see Bleckmann, "B?rgerkrieg" [ . above], 225-50). stantius. On Nepotianus, see PLRE 1:624, s.v. "Nepotianus 5" Kienast,
28 JulianT, o thAe thenians (AdAtheniense[sA dAth.])2 70D. Kaisertabelle ( . 3 above), 321.
29 Zosimus, New History (Historia nova [Hist, nov]) 2.40.2; PLRE 35 Libanius, Or. 18.10 (repeated by Socrates, HE 3.1.8). Itm ay also be
1:650, s.v. "Optatus 3." that the rescue of Julian (and Gallus, by extension) owed something to
30 Eunapius, VS 6.^.9-iy, Zosimus, Hist. nov. 2.40.3; Jerome, Chron. the involvement of Eusebius, bishop ofN icomedia. Eusebius was related
can. 234e; PLRE 1:3-4, s.v. "Ablabius 4." to Julian's mother (though not toG allus's), who died shortly after Julian's
31 Ausonius, Professores 16.9-16 with R. P. H. Green, The Works of birth, and Julian was under his supervision inN icomedia (even afterE use
Ausonius (Oxford, 1991), 351-53; PLRE 1:98-99, s.v. "Arborius 4". bius was transferred to Constantinople). This could explain the state
B3a2r nesP,L RCEo nsta1n:6t2in5e andan d3 3E0u-s3e1b?i uss-, vv-2 "6N1-e6p2o,t3i9an8.u s 7" and "Felicianus 5"; minenC th alctihdaitc e)i,tw asw hao bisrheospcu, eMd arJku lianof, Atrheothuguhsa, as( wsoeu thshwaells t seoef, C Aomnpsthainptoiluiss
later claimed the rescue for himself. Perhaps both Eusebius and Mark
33 PLRE 1:224-25 and 477-78, s.w. "Gallus 4" and "Iulianus 29"; were in the capital for the funeral. See Ammianus 22.9.4; Gregory of
and Kienast, Kaisertabelle, 318 and 323-24. Nazianzus, Or. 4.91 (the ultimate source for Theophanes AM 5853 [de
34 Nepotianus, the son ofV irius Nepotianus (it seems) and Eutropia, Boor 48.8-11] and Theophylact of Bulgaria, Martyrium 10 [see below,
sister of Julius Constantius and Flavius Dalmatius, is not mentioned by n. 45], PG 126:165c); Bowersock,y#//?? ( . above), 23; Barnes, Con
any source as having survived the massacre, not even by Julian, which stantine and Eusebius [ . 2 above], 398 . 14; and T. D. Barnes, Athana
would be most peculiar had he been alive. This strongly suggests that sius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in theC onstantinian Empire
Eutropia was pregnant with him at the time of the massacre. However, (Cambridge, MA, 1993), 105.
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood 11
|
must begin by arranging the sources chronologically and a ,6 7.2), since the armies firsth ad to learn
looking for relationships among them. ofC onstantine's death throughm essengers (68.1) and they
A of the sources shows that then had to communicate their decisions letters
preliminary analysis through
theyf all roughlyi ntot hreme ain chronologicagl roups, ( a a ; 68.3). In spiteo f the supernaturael labora
each with its own Tendenz: early sources that either tion, Eusebius is obviously trying to account for the gap
the events or what is ofm ore than threem onths between and
ignore altogether provide clearly May September
theo fficiallys anctionedv ersionw, hich layst heb lame without actually admitting its existence. Nevertheless,
on an uncontrollable, mutinous army; laterw riters who Eusebius then glosses over the considerable time lag he
baldly accuse Constantius of mass murder; and much has just described and calls Constantius ?a e
later sources that merely report reflections or hints of at the time of his father's funeral (70.2). But before this
the earlier accounts in sometimes fabricated and fanciful the senate and ofR ome have "his sons
people proclaimed
contexts aimed at supporting certain political or religious alone and no others as emperors' and augusti" (69.2:
Since no modern scholar has submitted the a a a ... a a a a a a
viewpoints.
evidence to a chronological analysis in order to chart its e?a ).A gain we have the constitutional legitimacy
developmentI, shalld o soh ere.T his analysisi s longa nd of the threeb rotherss tressedn; ot onlyh ad theyt wice
complicated, but the clarity itp rovides is fundamental inherited the empire from their father,b ut in case anyone
to the final interpretation. found that insufficienotr suspect,t heyh ad been fully
Our earliest source for the events surrounding the accepted by the army and the Roman senate and people
death of Constantine and the promotion of his sons is asw ell, these three groups being the traditional, and after
Eusebius'sL ife ofC onstantine (VitaC onstantini [VC] Constantine's death the only legitimate, bestowers of
4.51.1,65-71), written in the years immediately preceding imperial rights and powers. But, of course, their promo
Eusebius's death inM ay 339.E usebius states that at some tion of the three sonsw ould not have been necessary had
point after the end of his thirtieth year as emperor and Constantine himself actually promoted them before his
before his death (4.49 and 4.52.4), Constantine "divided death. Eusebius has mistakenly allowed the realityo f
the government of the whole Empire among his three a proclamation by army, senate, and people to intrude
sons, as though disposing a patrimony to those he loved into his fiction of a smooth, uncontentious handover of
best" (51.1; a a ?a e a a power. It is as ifn either Dalmatius nor Hannibalianus
a e a , a a a a a a had ever existed.
a ).T hen on his deathbed,b eforet he This absence is particularly clear in the portions of
assembled bishops and soldiers, "[o]n his sons he bestowed empire that Constantine assigned to his sons before his
as a fathers estate the inheritance of Empire, having death (V C 4.51.1),s incet hisi s inf actt hed ivisiono f the
arranged everything as he desired" (63.3: a a empire as itw as arranged afterC onstantine's death, not
e a a a ?a e a a e before. It is even more obvious when one compares VC
'
, a a a a a a e ).36T hen, 4.40.1-2 to a passage in his earlier oration on the occa
afterC onstantines death and the lying in state, all the sion of Constantine's thirtieth anniversary, delivered
armies, throughout the empire, acting as one, "as ifb y on 25 July 336, soon afterD almatius's accession (his Tri
supernatural inspiration" declared that theyw ould rec cennial Oration). There Eusebius refers toC onstantine's
ognize "no other than his [i.e.,C onstantines] sons alone promotion of a caesar for each decade of his reign and
as emperors of theR omans" (68.2: a e the proclamation of the fourth caesar (Dalmatius) for
f
a a a a a a a ) and then the fourth decade. He then describes the four caesars as
"soon" ( e a ) promoted them from caesars to yokedb eforet hee mperorq'su adriga( ?a e ;
augusti (68.3).N ow thism ust have taken some consider Triac. 3.2a nd 4). Thisp assage is repeatedi n theV C only
able time afterC onstantines lying in state (66-67, esP a few years later, but now there are only three decades
and the caesars have become "like a trinity, a triple off
36 All translations of Eusebius are from Av. Cameron and S. G. Hall: of sons."
spring
Enuosteebs iuosn, pLpi.f e3 3o3f-3 C4o.n sFtoanr titnhee id(eOax offo rtdh, e e1m99p9ir).e Faosr anth hise rpeadsistaagrey, psoeses etsh e Furthermore, Eusebius's stress on the legitimacy
sion, see I. Tantillo, "'Come un bene ereditario': Costantino e la retorica of Constantine's sons alone rings hollow because in his
dell' impero-patrimonio," L'antiquit? tardive 6 (1998): 251-64. version there is no one else to challenge the succession:
DOP 62
12 R.W.Burgess
I
there isn o or virtue in we'll take with an to demonstrate their and
importance saying only opportunity bravery
three and these three alone, ifo nly three are on offer.T he ' courage ( a a or a a a).37
e e a a e and a Just over a decade later,d uring thew inter of 355-56,
a in particular and the whole narrative in general Julian, inh is firstp anegyric toC onstantius, also mentions
therefore betray Eusebius's purpose. He knew thatm any that Constantius was heir to the empire ( a ...
ifn ot most readers would know about the existence and ,O r. 1.7D), and immediately mentions the
removal of Dalmatius Caesar, and he is providing for circumstances involving the succession of Constantine I,
them an implicit explanation for his disappearance: he who, after his fathers death in 306, had succeeded to
did not become augustus because itw as not thew ish of the throneb y the choice of his fathera nd thev ote of
Constantine, the army,o r the senate and people of Rome. all the armies.
This entire narrative is therefore intended to explain the Later Julian states thatC onstantius had acted a
legitimacy of the promotion of Constantine's sons to a ("justlyan dm oderately"t) owardh is broth
augustus and the absence ofD almatius, once a legitimate ers, the citizens, his father s friends, and the army, "except,
heir selected by Constantine, without admitting the dif ife verf orcedb y timeso f crisisy, ou unwillinglyd id not
ficulties involved in either. It is really quite ingenious prevent others from doing wrong" ( e ? a e
in its a a e e a a e e a ,
deception.
The next earliest sources are two panegyrics delivered Or. 1.16D-17A).
byL ibanius andJ uliani n 344/45a nd 355/5r6e spectively. Julian also mentions, in the context of the begin
Itm ust be remembered throughout the following analysis ning of the Persian war, that military affairs had been
that both panegyrics were delivered in the presence of thrown into great confusion in consequence of the
Constantius himself, and this had consequences forw hat political change followingt hed eath ofC onstantine,
could and could not be said. In Or. 59.48-49 Libanius and thatt he soldierss houtedt hatt heyl ongedf ort heir
alludes to certain events that he implies immediately fol previous commander and theyw ished to control (a e )
lowed the death of Constantine and that he does not Constantius (18D). That Constantius's army mutinied
mention when he presents his account of the summer of upon his accession is a surprising admission for his pan
337s lightlyla teri n thes ameo ration( ?? 72-75),w hereh e egyricist. Itm ust be that this comment appears for a very
mentions nothing untoward at all. In ?? 48-49 he insists particular ulterior purpose.
that in spite of them omentous change that followed the Julian notes that afterh is father s death Constantius
death ofC onstantine, "the government of the empire was was surrounded by "dangers and manifold problems:
notd isturbedn, ord id anyo f thee ventsa ffectt heh eirso f confusion, a serious war, many raids, a revolt of allies,
imperial power. But while the government remained in a lack of discipline among the soldiers ( a
an orderly disposition, itd id so not without a degree of a a a), and other great difficulties at that time" (20B).
trouble nor without the successors' having tom ake use of The war and the raids refer to the Persian siege ofN isi
violence to securely retainw hat had be' en granted to them" bis and Sarmatian incursions on theD anube in 337; the
( e e e a a e a a e a a allies are the Armenians (see 18D and 20D); the rest
a e a e a e a a e ?e?a must therefore describe Constantius's other problems
a a, 48). He rejoiced with the sons because "they with the army. The parallels with Libanius's account are
received imperial power from their father and theyp roved
superior to the concomitant tumult" ( e 37 R. F?rster, ed., Libami opera 4 (Leipzig, 1908), 232.19 and 233.5, and
a a a a e a ,4 9)?a comment he repeats at 8. It has been suggested tom e that Libanius is speaking ofC onstantine II s
thee ndo f4 9, substitutinga e a for a a , a a is revolt in this passage, and Im ust say that I find this a particularly attrac
aw ord thamt eans and can be tive interpretation, especially in connection with what follows in sections
politicalu pheaval applied
to rebellion or civilw ar. He thenm entions that they faced 5iu1-s5s 2h. oTuhled mi majoprl y(pm roobrleemt h ainso tnhcate )I tchana tt imheagr ienve olnto( s prreaisnong3 w40h)y imLibmane di
some sort of "difficulty" ( ). Like Eusebius, Liba ately followed Constantine's death and the succession (337).W ould not
nius uses the imagery of the sons as the heirs to imperial a listener at the time have assumed that he was speaking about events
power (oi a ,4 8, and , at the time of the succession? See also the comments in favor of 337 by
R-L. Malosse, LibaniosDiscours (Bud? series; Paris, 2003), 4:192. As a
13w, here they are the third generation of heirs). Three result of this uncertainty, I have not placed great emphasis on Liban
times Libanius states that this crisis provided the sons ius's comments here.
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood 13
|
obvious. In this case, however, Julian says that before by inscriptions fromw hich his name has been erased.41
Constantius returned to Syria the mutiny ended and That Julius Constantius was condemned asw ell is implied
order was restored (20D). by his omission from Gallus's titles on two milestones
Although no explicit connection ism ade between fromG aul: he isd escribedo nly as "diuiC onstantii pii
the army revolt and a time of crisis when Constantius Augustin epos"w ith no hinto fw hose "filiush"e w as (CIL
"unwillingly did not prevent others from doing wrong," 17.2:147 and 171).A s we shall see below, both Eunapius
it is clear that Julian is referring to the army.N ot only is andA mmianus implyt hatJ uliusC onstantiusp layeda
the army the last in the list, closest to the exception, but leading role in the causes of them assacre.
Julian immediatelygo es on tog ive specifice xampleso f In his panegyric Julian states thatC onstantius alone
Constantius's good treatment of his enemies, Constanti hastened toC onstantine s sidew hile he was still alive (Or
nople, his brothers, and his friends.N o mention ism ade 1.16D). But later,d uring the summer of 358,h e extended
of the army. The only situation described by Julian as oi this claim (Or. 2.94A-B), saying that Constantius was
a ist hisc risisa t theb eginningo fh is reigni nvolving Constantines favorite and that as he layd ying Constan
thes oldierWs.h en thea rmyi sf inallyd iscussed ind etail tine summoned him alone; his brothers neither were sum
(18C-D, 21B-22A),J uliani sh ighlyc riticawl ith respect moned nor came (ol e e e a e ).
to its lack of preparedness forw ar in 337. When he arrived Constantine then entrusted him with
This panegyrical account, delivered in person toC on suprempeo wer ( a e a a a) and assigned
stantius, openly admits that the accession was marred him thea ppropriatpeo rtiono f thee mpiret og overn( his
by crisis, confusion, and direct threats from the army to own). OnlyZonaras (EpitomeHistori n, 13.4.28),w riting
the successors of Constantine. Libanius may be admit after 1118, repeats the claim that Constantine was still
ting the same thing, but ifn ot, then he passes over the alive when Constantius arrived, and he probably derives
difficulties of the succession without any comment at itf rom this panegyric.42 He later notes the contradiction
all. And as in Eusebius's account, Dalmatius Caesar is in his sources: some stated thatC onstantine divided the
missing. One could understand that the panegyricists empirea mongh is sonsa nd otherst hatt heyh ad divided
would have been unwilling to dwell on his removal, but it amongst themselves after his death (13.15.1).
that hardly accounts for his complete absence from both This insistence that Constantius was promoted by
works. Constantine II is also from Libanius's his father before his death was a falsehood thatw as main
missing
wherein it is said that Constan tained even the Constantius
panegyric, explicitly beyond panegyrical sphere:
tius only ever had the one brother, Constans. It is as if celebrated an accession anniversary inM ay of 357w hile
Constantine II too had never existed. This is because he he was inR ome, exactly twenty years afterC onstantine s
declared war on Constans in early spring 340, and after death, even though the anniversary was not due until
his death in battle he suffered damnatio memoriae?* 8N ovember 3s8.43
We know that Eusebius was always keen to follow the In a later panegyric delivered in honor of Eusebia,
officially sanctioned version of history,w hatever thatm ay Constantius's new wife,44 who had in 354 persuaded
have involved. Constantine s eldest son,w ho was
Crispus,
executed in the spring or summer of 326, never appears 41 Ibid., 307. See, e.g., TituliAsiae minoris 3.1 (Vienna, 1941), no. 944;
in Eusebius's Tricennial Oration or Life ofC onstantine, AEpigr 1934.158; 1948.50; and CIL 6.40776.
and Eusebius had earlier expunged him from hisH istoria 42 See Burgess, Studies ( . 15 above), 225 . 132. For Julian as Zonaras's
ecclesiastica and doronici ca?ones, inw hich he had once source, see also Lucien-Brun, "Constance II" (n. 2 above): 595.N ote that
He too had suffered damnatio memoriae.40 Malalas says that Constantine I made Constantine II (sic) emperor of
appeared.39 Rome while he was still alive in the year 338 (Chronographia 13.15;T hurn,
These instances strongly suggest that Dalmatius's non 249), a confused version of the same account.
existence in Eusebius, Libanius, and Julian is also the 43 See R. W. Burgess, "Quinquennial Vota and the Imperial Consul
result of damnatio memoriae, and this is indeed proved ship, 337-511,"N C 148 (1988): 83-84. Note that the Chronicon Paschale
takes the hint and calls the celebration his vicennalia (Bonn, 542.19-20),
even though coins of the time and theD escriptio consulum (s.a. 357.2;
38 CTh . 2. . R. W. Burgess, The Chronicle ofHydatius and the Consularia Con
39 See T. D. Barnes, "The Editions of Eusebius' EcclesiasticalHistory\ stantinopolitana [Oxford, 1993], 238) correctly mark the anniversary
GRBS zi (1980): 197-98, and Burgess, Studies (n. 25 above), 66-74. as his thirty-fifth.
40 Kienast, Kaisertabelle ( . 3 above), 306. 44 PLRE 1:300-301, s.v. "Eusebia"; Kienast, Kaisertabelle, 317.
DOP 62