Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:15:40.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The early development of the senate of Constantinople*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Alexander Skinner
Alexander Skinner*
Affiliation:
University College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The development of the senate of Constantinople as an imperial senate, on a par with the senate of Rome, has been attributed to Constantius II to the exclusion of Constantine and dated to 357. The present paper argues that the evidence for this dating is fundamentally flawed and that the decisive change came at the outset of the reign of Constantius II, while developments under Constantine foreshadowed it in significant respects. Conclusions are also drawn about what the evidence reveals of relations between Hellenic gentry and imperial rule in the fourth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , 2008 , pp. 128 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to the British Academy for financial support while preparing a draft of this paper. I have since benefited from conversations with John Matthews, Peter Heather and John North.

References

1 Ellissen, O.A., Der Senat im Oströmischen Reiche (Göttingen 1881) 16 Google Scholar.

2 Dagron, G., Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris 1974) 119—46Google Scholar is standard but far from flawless. Important observations can also be found in Chastagnol, A., ‘Remarques sur les sénateurs orientaux au IVe siècle’, Acta Antiqua Hungaricae 24 (1976) 341-56Google Scholar.

3 Millar, F., ‘Empire and city, Augustus to Julian: obligations, excuses and status’, Journal of Roman Studies 73 (1983) 76–96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 91, notes that ‘clarissimatus’ is not attested before the 370s and that, strictly speaking, ‘clarissima dignitas’ appears to have been the proper usage at least as late as the 350s.

4 Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey (Oxford 1964) 528-15Google Scholar, 466 n.133, 490-91 n.47, is basic on this.

5 Valesianus, Anonymus, Origo Constantini Imperatis (hereafter Anon. Val.), ed. König, I. (Trier 1987) 6 Google Scholar.30: ‘Ibi senatum constituit secundi ordinis, claros vocavit’.

6 Digesta Iustiniani Augusti (hereafter Digest), ed. Mommsen, Th. and Krüger, P. (Berlin 1870)Google Scholar, 1.9.11: ‘Senatores licet in urbe domicilium habere videantur, tamen et ibi, unde oriundi sunt, habere domicilium intelleguntur, quia dignitas domicilu adiectionem potius dedisse quam permutasse videtur.’ (The translation is mine.) Cf. Digest 50.1.23.

7 For the continuing importance of private domiciles note, for example, Codex Theodosianus (hereafter CTh), ed. Mommsen, Th. with Meyer, P. and Krüger, P. (Berlin 1905, repr. 1962)Google Scholar, 6.2.13.1.

8 CTh 6.4.11: ‘Si quos in urbe Roma perfunctos esse claruerit magistratibus, ad nulla editionem genera devocentur. Urbis autem Romae curiam callide declinantes clarissimo praeditos nomine per Achaiam Macedoniam totumque Illyricum iussimus quaeri raro vel numquam sedem dignitatis propriae frequentantes, quibus locorum grata confinia possint esse iucunda, ut carens mora longinquae peregrinationis debeat dignitatis concupisci.’ The translation is from Pharr, C. (et al.) The Theodosian Code (Princeton 1952) 122 Google Scholar.

9 Piganiol, A., L’Empire chrétien (Paris 1947) 117 Google Scholar; Jones, The Later Koman Empire, 132-3. Piganiol was originally followed by Chastagnol, , La préfecture urbaine à Rome sous le Bas-Empire (Paris 1960) 38 Google Scholar, though later he disagreed in ‘Remarques’, 349 n.42.

10 Petit, P., ‘Les sénateurs de Constantinople dans l’œuvre de Libanius’, L’antiquité classique 26 (1957) 347-82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 357-8, citing CTh 6.2.13.

11 Codex Justinianus (hereafter CJ), ed. Krüger, P., Corpus Iuris Civilis, II (Berlin 1877, repr. 1967) 12.1.15, 18 Google Scholar.

12 Petit, ‘Les sénateurs’, 357 n.2: ‘L’empéreur les invite seulement a acquérir des propriétés plus proches de Rome’; Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 127: ‘Il s’agit de lutter contre l’absentéism ... Si nous comprenons bien, il s’agit uniquement de Rome; c’est Rome qui est désignée comme siège du sénat, c’est de Rome que doivent se rapprocher les sénateurs des provinces d’Achaïe, de Macédoine, et plus généralement de la préfecture d’Illyricum.’ Cf.Chekalova, A.A., K voprosy o vozniknovenii senatorskogo soslovia Konstantinopolia’, VV 50 (1989) 47–58 Google Scholar, at 53 n.49.

13 As also noted by the translators of the Code into English: Pharr, C., et al., The Theodosian Code (Princeton 1952) 122 Google Scholar n.33.

14 For Constantius’ visit, see Marcellinus, Ammianus, Res Gestae, edd. Seyfarth, W., 2 vols. (Leipzig 1978), 16.10 Google Scholar.

15 See discussion at nn.61-62 below.

16 Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 127.

17 Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 128 n.1.

18 Petit, ‘Les sénateurs’, 357 n.2.

19 Petit, ‘Les sénateurs’, 357, 376-9; The Prosopograpby of the Later Roman Empire I-II (hereafter PLRE I-II), ed. Jones, A.H.M. et al. (Cambridge 1971-80)Google Scholar at PLRE I (Olympius 3), 643-4. Cf.Libanius, , Opera, ed. Foerster, R., 12 vols. (Leipzig 1903-23)Google Scholar, Or. 1.275-8; Epp. 561, 581.

20 Libanius, Ep. 70.4: Όύτός γε είς τήν ύμετέραν μετέστη βουλήν άπο της μείζονος, συγγνώση δέ εί μείζω καλώ τήν ‘Ρωμαίων σέ τησδε έχούσης.’ The letter is translated in Norman, A. F., Libanius: Autobiography and Selected Letters, I (Cambridge MA 1992) 503-5Google Scholar, as Letter 43 (from which I vary only slightly).

21 Libanius, Ep. 251.5: Όλόμπιος οοτος, öv δί,ς εύ πεποίηκας, δίς γάρ ήμων ήρξας, ήξει δέ ΐσως καιή τρίτη, πρότερον μέν εΐς το ‘Ρωμαίων έτελεν συνεδριον, χθες δε ώς είπεΐν τεγονεν ύμέτερος.’ The letter is translated in Bradbury, S., Selected Letters of Libanius (Liverpool 2005) 103-5Google Scholar, as Letter 66 (from which again I vary only slightly).

22 Libanius, Ep. 251.10: ‘τοΰτω ουν δεόμεθα σύμμετρον εΐναι τήν φοράν, κάν τις είς то λειτουργεϊν δγη νΰν, διακωλύειν τοΰ νόμου μεμνημενον, ος τοΐς άρτι δεδομένοις ύμΐν εδωκεν άναβολήν ού νομίζων καλως άν έχειν προ τών προτέρων τούς δευτέρους δαπανδν.’ The translation here follows Bradbury.

23 Libanius, Ep. 252.6: ‘τοΰτο δέ εστοα χρόνοις ϋστερον. οίίς γάρ νύν προσειλήφατε παρά τής μητρός, οΰτω γάρ ευ ποιοδντες καλεΐτε τήν ‘Ρώμην, τούτους άναβολη δεδώρηται βασιλεύς. ής εί’ τις Όλύμπιον άποστερεΐ, μή ποιοΰ φορητόν.’ The letter is translated in Bradbury, Selected Letters of Libanius, 122-3, as Letter 84, from which I have not materially varied.

24 Matthews, J., Laying Down the Law: A Study of the Theodosian Code (New Haven 2000) 95 Google Scholar.

25 Libanius, Or. 42.23-24. Cf. Petit, ‘Les sénateurs’, 348, 357, 376-9, noting these individuals but overlooking them in his discussion of CTh 6.4.11 and Olympius; similarly Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, noting these individuals at 132 n.3 and 170, but discussing the partition of the senatorial order, at 127-8, without reference to them.

26 Libanius, Or. 42.23.

27 Editorial observation at PLRE 1 (Tychamenes), 927.

28 Noted in Petit, ‘Les sénateurs’, 348. Cf. PLRE I (Fl. Ablabius 4), 3-4.

29 PLRE I (Flavius Philippus 7), 696-7. His disgrace and death: Zosimus, , New History, ed. Paschoud, F., 3 vols. (Paris 1971-89)Google Scholar, 2.47-8; Athanasius, , History of the Arians, ed. Opitz, H.G. in Athanasius Werke II.1, 183-230 (Berlin 1936), 7 Google Scholar. He had at least one great-grandson (apparently through the paternal line) who was certainly a native of Egypt: PLRE II (Flavius Anthemius Isidorus 9), 631-3; cf.Robert, L., ‘Épigrammes du bas-empire’, Hellenica 4 (1948), 43 Google Scholar. Note that his career as a senator may have dated to Constantine’s reign: Jones, A.H.M., ‘The Career of Flavius Philippus’, Historia 4 (1955) 229-33Google Scholar.

30 Ammianus Marcellinus, 14.7. Cf. PLRE I (Domitianus 3), 262.

31 Libanius, Ep. 1184 for earlier service. Cf. PLRE I (Datianus 1), 243-4.

32 AE (1934), 159; Athanasius, History of the Arians, 22; Ammianus Marcellinus, 14.11.14. Cf. PLRE I (Flavius Taurus 3), 879-80.

33 Paphlagonian: Ammianus Marcellinus, 21.6.9. Note also CTh 11.24.1, 7.4.4-6, 8.5.11; Libanius, Or. 37.11. Cf. PLRE I (Helpidius 4), 414.

34 Libanius, Or. 42.24.

35 Libanus, Or. 42.21-22.

36 Chastagnol, ‘Remarques’, 344–5.

37 As Chastagnol conceded: ibid., 345 with n.22.

38 Libanius, Or. 1.76: ‘то μεν ουν δεικνύνοα λόγους ούδέ ώς κατέλυσα, καί συνήεσαν οί μεν άκουσόμενοι λόγων, οί πλείους δε θεασόμενοι κινοθμενον, ο\α δή τά τής βουλης έκείνης έξ οπλων ή μουσείων το πλέον.’ The translation is from A. F. Norman, Libanius: Autobiography and Selected Letters, 139.

39 For Constantius’ restrictiveness, see Ammianus Marcellinus, 21.16.1-2. Kelly, C., ‘Emperors, government and bureaucracy’, in Cameron, A.M. and Garnsey, P.D.A. (edd.) The Cambridge Ancient History, XIII The Late Empire, .A.D. 337-425 (Cambridge 1998) 138-83Google Scholar, at 168, for the bureaucracy as a militia.

40 Ammianus Marcellinus, 22.7.2-4 — and, indeed, passim.

41 Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 124: ‘en tout cas dès 355 un sénateur de Constantinople est clarissimus’.

42 Demegoria Constantii, in Themistii Orationes, ed. Downey, G. and Norman, A., 3 vols. (Leipzig 1965-74) 19b.Google Scholar Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 124, though citing Constantius’ plural, does not appear to acknowledge the inconsistency with the notion of Themistius as a special case. Chastagnol, ‘Remarques’, 345 n.22, notes the phrase but does not pursue the point. Cf.Chastagnol, , L’Évolution politique, sociale et économique du monde romain de Dioctétien à Julien: la mise en place du Bas-Empire (284-363) (Paris 1982) 229 Google Scholar.

43 CTh 6.4.9, for elections to the praetorship: ‘Placet, ne minus quinquaginta clarissimi veniant in senatum: certum est namque hoc numero large abundare substantiam virtuti omnimodae.’

44 Libanius, Ep. 70.1.

45 Petit, ‘Les sénateurs’, 368 n.2, contra Bouchery, H., Themistius in Libanius’ Brieven (Gand 1936) 139 Google Scholar.

46 The province is attested as consular in 362: Himerius, , Declamationes et Orationes, ed. Colonna, (Rome 1951)Google Scholar, Or. 39, addressed to Calliopius as ‘κονσουλαρίου’. Cf. PLRE I (Calliopius 2), 174-5.

47 Libanius, Ep. 70.3.

48 In fact, both Petit and Dagron recognized that such transfers took place — as most obviously required when an easterner was appointed prefect of Rome or vice versa — but discreetly discarded (for no very obvious reason) this explanation of Olympius’ case in their footnotes: Petit, ‘Les sénateurs’, 357 n.2; Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 128 n.4.

49 CTh 1.5.5, 8.4.7, 12.1.43, 12.1.49, 12.12.1 (inter alia); Ammianus Marcellinus, 21.6.5, 21.9.4; Inscriptions Christianae Urbis Romae, ed. De Rossi, I. B., 2 vols. (Rome 1857-1915) I, 148 Google Scholar, 150.

50 Paribeni, R., Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità 11 (1933) 492 Google Scholar, pl. XV. The consulship is oddly excluded. The inscription also states: ‘D. N. Valentinianus et Valens Víctores ас triumphatores semper Augusti statuam sub auro quam adprobante amplissimo senatu iamdudum meruerat ad perpetuam laudabilis viri memoriam reddi iusserunt’. Taurus was exiled under Julian (Ammianus Marcellinus, 22.3.4) so that the surviving inscription, which was posthumous (pace PLRE 1 at n.32 supra), marked the installation of a new statue to replace one installed under Constantius II. See Cameron, A., Long, J. and Sherry, L., Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (Berkeley CA 1993) 317 Google Scholar n.53; Vogler, Ch., Constance II et l’administration impériale (Strasbourg 1979) 128 Google Scholar.

51 For Ampelius, see Ammianus Marcellinus, 28.4.3-4 and Symmachus, Lettres , ed. Callu, J.-P., II (Paris 1982)Google Scholar Epp. 5.54, 66. Taurus’ continuing eastern ties are strongly implied by the long eastern careers of his sons, Caesarius and Aurelianus, for which see Cameron, , Long, & Sherry, , Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius, 6-9, 126 Google Scholar, 149-97, 233-6, necessitating corrections of PLRE I (Aurelianus 3), 128-9, (Fl. Caesarius 6), 171, (Flavius Eutychianus 5), 319-21.

52 Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 530-1, offers valuable precision.

53 Ibid., 431 n.51, collects an array of evidence.

54 See, for instance, CTh 1.5.1, issued by Constantine in 325 in relation to provincial governors. Cf. CTh 9.1.1 (AD317), 9.1.13 (AD376, reiterating the cognizance of provincial governors in criminal cases against senators with the qualification that governors shall then refer the matter to the emperor or to the praetorian or urban prefect — the last reflecting a continuing role for urban prefects in criminal jurisdiction over senators).

55 Reiterated, for example, in 364 by Valentinian and Valens in CTh 2.1.4: ‘actor rei forum sequatur, ita ut, si senators aliquid a provincialibus poscunt, eo, qui provinciam regit, cognitore confligant. si vero provincialis non suscipiat, sed inferat actiones, praefecto urbis disceptante decertet.’

56 Heather, P., ‘New Men for New Constantines? Creating an imperial elite in the eastern Mediterranean’, in Magdalino, P. (ed.), New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries (Aldershot 1994) 11–33 Google Scholar, here 13-14, 18-20, is excellent on the changing relationship between government service and membership of the senate from the 360s and especially 370s onward, and on the increasing numbers of senators in East and West that resulted. Zuckerman, C., ‘Two reforms of the 370s: Recruiting soldiers and senators in the divided empire’, REB 56 (1998) 79–139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 104 and 132-3, misses this point, with consequences for his discussion of senators that need to be addressed elsewhere.

57 CTh 2.1.4 at n.55 above and 9.1.13 at n.54 above. See also 1.6.1 (issued by Constantius II to the senate of Constantinople in 361), referring appeals from Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Hellespontus, the Islands, Phrygia Salutaris, Europa, Rhodope and Haemimontus to the court of the prefect of Constantinople; and 1.6.10 (issued by Theodosius I, perhaps in 385), restating this position in relation to Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Phrygia Salutaris.

58 Note, for example, that CTh 1.6.1, mentioning the jurisdiction of prefects of Constantinople in cases of appeal from Europa and Rhodope among other provinces (n.57 supra) is foreshadowed in Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 3, in which Donatus, as proconsul of the city in 343 exercised jurisdiction in Rhodope, where Olympius (whom he arrested) was bishop of Aenus. Cf. PLRE I (Donatus 1), 268.

59 A connection between transference from Rome and deferral of magistracies is made explicit at Libanius, Ep. 252.6, quoted at n.23 above.

60 Libanius, Ep. 251.10 (quoted at n.22 supra); 251.12: ‘γενέσθω δή καί τοϋτο καινόν, то μή τούς συνεδρους ύπ’ ένίων σπαράττεσθοα μηδέ τούς μέν έν γήρατελευταν ού λελειτουργηκότας πάλοα τών ποφ’ ύμϊν άγαθων μετέχοντας τούς δ’ οδπω γεγευμενους τών παρ’ ύμΐν άγαθων εύθύς άπο γραμμής άλγεΐν.’ Note that, in 355, there were some three hundred members of the eastern senate — Themistius, Or. 34.13: ‘έξ δτου то σιτηρέσιον έπανήγαγον των όμογενων άντί μόλις τριακοσίων έπληρουν είς δισχιλίους’. An average span of twenty years’ membership, would have needed annual replenishment of about fifteen, five times the three praetorships at the time and three times the five that existed from 361. In practice, even the two extra praetorships from 361 would not necessarily have reduced the exclusivity of the office since Themistius’ head-hunting of senators (though not to be confused with the far more fundamental increase brought about by rule changes under Valentinian and Valens) had increased recent intakes. On Themistius’ recruitment-drive, see Heather, ‘New Men for New Constantines?’, 12-13. For the comprehensive and important regulation of the praetorships in 361, see CTh 1.6.1; 1.28.1; 6.4.12-13; 7.8.1; 11.1.7; 11.15.1; 11.23.1; 12.1.48; 13.1.3; 15.1.7.

61 For the appeal of Themistius’ recruitment drive in the eastern provinces, see A. Skinner, G., ‘The birth of a “Byzantine” senatorial perspective’, Arethusa 33 (2000) 363-77CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 370-72.

62 Ibid., 372, 377, for the example of Clearchus. Cf. J. Vanderspoel, Themistius and the Imperial Court, 63, for a general eastward drift.

63 See n.5 above.

64 For usages of ‘λαμπρός’, note for example Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum XXVII 483, 948, 1019; XXIX 642, 1417; XXXIII 869.9; XXXIV 1109, 1552; XXXVII 1271.

65 Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 121-4, and at 124; ‘...une différence entre les sénateurs romains (clarissimi) qui ont suivi Constantin dans sa nouvelle résidence et les curiales de l’ancienne boulè de Byzance ou les nouveaux promus de Constantinople. La fusion entre les sénateurs de la cour impériale et les notables de la cité n’a pu se faire que progressivement, à mesure que les sénateurs se sont établis définitivement dans la ville et que l’assemblée a perdu son caractère locale et poliade. Ce fut l’affaire d’une génération’. Cf. Zosimus, 2.31.3.

66 Demegoria Constantii, 23b; Themistius, Or. 4.53b; cf. Or. 4.55a-b; Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 124.

67 CTh 6.4.5: ‘primae praeturae, quae flaviali nuncupatione signatur, viginti et quinqué milium follium et quinquaginta librarum argenti erogationem sumptusque praescripsimus. in secunda vero constantiniana viginti milia follium et quadraginta libras argenti largiendas esse censimus. tertia triumphalis quindecim milia follium ac triginta argenti libros sine inconmodo editoris expendat.’

68 Chastagnol, ‘Remarques’, 346, contra Jones, The Later Koman Empire, 132 and 83 n.13.

69 Chastagnol, ‘Remarques’, 346-7; CJ 7.62.17; CTh 3.32.2.

70 Chronicon Paschale, ed. Díndorf, L. (Bonn 1832), at a. 326 Google Scholar.

71 Sutherland, C.H.V. and Carson, R.A.G. (eds.) Roman Imperial Coinage, VII: Constantine and Licinius, AD313-337 (Cambridge 1966) 578 Google Scholar, no.53. Cf.Bühl, G., Constantinopolis und Koma: Stadtpersonifikationen der spätantike (Zürich 1995) 11–12 Google Scholar.

72 In the preamble to CTh 6.4.25 (issued at Constantinople in 384 in the most substantial revision of the eastern praetorships since 361): ‘veteres triumphalem praetorem bellicae felicitates causa reppererunt; nos iniunximus augustalem.’

73 Libanius, Or. 1.45 for the proconsuls Alexander and Limenius. For Donatus, mentioned by Athanasius, see at n.58 above.

74 Jones, The Later Roman Empire, ch.3 n.13, with reference to ILS 1240, 6111.

75 Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 112.

76 CTh 6.2.14(9): ‘omnes, qui ex Macedoniae partibus amplissimo Constantinopolitanae urbis ordini allecti sunt, ad Thracum similitudinem senatorum glebali iubemus praestatione reddi immunes.’ The translation is from Pharr (et al.), The Theodosian Code, 118.

77 The initial eastward transfer of dioceses is mentioned in Sozomen, , Ecclesiastical History, ed. Bidez, J. and Hansen, G.C., Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller NF 4 (Berlin 1995), 7.4 Google Scholar; cf. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 156. See also discussion at n.91 below.

78 Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, ed. Seeck, O. (Berlin 1876) 16.28 Google Scholar.

79 Sozomen, 2.3.6, attributes a βουλευτήριον to Constantine. This much is plausible as Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, 3.8, mentions ‘senatum’ in regio secunda, part of the core zone of Constantine’s intensive building activity. Constantius II may have had a role but the initial construction can be ascribed to his father. The other senate-house is unmentioned in the regional description and was most probably out of use (at least as regards its original function) by the fifth century if not earlier.

80 Eusebius, , Life of Constantine, ed. Winkelmann, F., Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller NF 4: Eusebius , 1/1 (Berlin 1995) 4.1Google Scholar, with Heather, ‘New Men for New Constantines?’, 16.

81 See n.60 above.

82 Precision is impossible. Nevertheless, for an estimate of the Roman senate at about six hundred members into the third century, Talbert, R.J.A., The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton 1984) 29 Google Scholar, 131–4. It is unlikely to have grown before the mid-fourth century. For the proportion from eastern provinces, Chastagnol, ‘Remarques’, 341, gives percentages to the late third century. Lambrechts, P., La composition du Sénat romain de Séptime-Sévère à Dioctétien (Budapest 1937)Google Scholar and Barbieri, G., L’Albo senatorio da Settimo Severo a Carino (Rome 1952)Google Scholar, remain basic for an estimate of the third-century background.

83 For Constantius II’s restrictiveness, see n.39 above.

84 Eunapius, , Vitae sophistarum, ed. Giangrande, G. (Rome 1956) 6.2Google Scholar.

85 Libanius, Or. 42.23 for the Cretan origins of Ablabius (and Tychamenes).

86 Note the extreme gravity with which charges of attempting to tamper with the grain fleet from Alexandria were met, regardless of religion, in the cases of Sopater and Athanasius: Eunapius, 6.2; Athanasius, Defence Against the Arians, 9.3/4.

87 Anon. Val. 6.30; Eutropius, , Breviarium, ed. Ruehl, F. (Leipzig 1887) 10.8Google Scholar; Sozomen, 2.3.5-6.

88 For Proculus, CIL VIII 24521; cf. PLRE I (L. Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius 11), 747-9. For Maximus, CTh 1.4.2, 1.5.2, 1.16.4, 7.20.4, 7.20.5, 12.1.10, 12.1.12, 15.12.1; cf. PLRE 1 (Valerius Maximus 49), 590-91.

89 CTh 9.34.4; Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 4.42.3; Libanius, Or.1.36.

90 See discussion at nn.61-62 above.

91 See discussion at nn.76-77 above.

92 On statues, see Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 54.1-2.

93 Ammianus Marcellinus, 22.7.3.

94 Ibid.

95 Claudius Mamertinus, Gratiarum Actio, 2.3: ‘hoc augustissimum consilii publici templům’, in Nixon, C.E.V. & Rodgers, B.S., In Praise of Later Koman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini (Berkeley CA 1994)Google Scholar.

96 Zosimus, 3.2.3.