干旱区生态环境知识资源中心(Arid): Diocletian in the Split Palace

Arid

	Diocletian in the Split Palace
	Cambi, Nenad
来源期刊	RADOVI-ZAVODA ZA HRVATSKU POVIJEST
ISSN	0353-295X
出版年	2010
卷号	42 期号:1 页码:169-194
英文摘要	Only a few rulers voluntarily decided to share or even to leave the throne as was the case with Diocletian. With him began a new period in the Roman history: the transition from pagan to Christian civilisation. Diocletian created a system of more rulers, which gradually led from monarchy to diarchy and finally to tetrarchy. The system consisted of two Augusti and two Caesares. The abdication of the Augusti in favour of the Caesares was also planned. In such a situation the Augusti were obliged to build residences for the rest of their life after their retirement. At least three such residences are so far known (Split, Gamzigrad and Sarkamen). The location of Maximian's residence in southern Italy (Lucania) is still unknown. The site of Diocletian's residence was chosen in the administrative and cadastral community of Salona, the capital od the Roman province of Dalmatia. The reason for such a choice probably lies in the emperor's private property and economical interests he had in this area (factories of armour and weapons, manufactories of cloths and for dying). Diocletian's connections with central Dalmatia are revealed in the official name of Salona containing the family name of the emperor (Martia Iulia Valeria Salona). Lactantius clearly describes the abdication of two Augusti (Diocletian and Maximian). According to Lactantius, during Diocletian's reconvalescence, he was reluctant to renounce the throne. That is why Galerius, in order to compel him, emphasized that the Augustus himself must be the first to adhere to the power succesion procedure. Accordingly this is a strong evidence that the tetrarchy and the abdication system were not an improvisation. During approximately ten years which Diocletian spent in the Split palace many serious events had shaken the state. Diocletian must have been not only informed but he must have also participated in them as the senior Augustus. The first complications of the second tetrarchy occurred already on 25th July 306 when Constantius I died. The army hailed his son Constantine Augustus. Galerius was not pleased and recognized Constantine only as Caesar. Such Galerius' decision was in accordance with the tetrarchic practice since Severus had seniority and therefore was the first in line to succeed Constantius. When Maxentius usurped the power in Rome on 28th October 306 the political situation grew worse. Unsuccessful Severus' campaign against Maxentius resulted in Severus' death. The situation in the West was equally deteriorating since Maxentius asked his father Maximian to assume the power as the second Augustus (since he was once the senior Augustus he could not be mere Maxentius' Caesar), while Constantine was Caesar and an unrecognized by Galerius Augustus in Gaul. Now Galerius undertook his own campaign against both son and father. Galerius' action was legal (the revenge of Severus and the restoration of the legal tetrachic system in the West). But Galerius was defeated by Maximian's army. Afterwards the conflict for the supreme authority between Maxentius and Maximian arose. Then Maximian went to Gaul to his son-in-law Constantine, but Maximian's intentions were hostile. In such a situation Galerius' only hope to resolve the problems was Diocletian as the senior Augustus of unquestionable authority. In the East Maximinus Daja also caused problems to Galerius persistently asking for his own promotion to the Augustus rank. Lactantius also guessed that Maximian intended to reinstate Diocletian and himself to the throne. According to very well known passage from the Epitome de Caesaribus, in which Diocletian did not accept the offer for their joint return to power, this was really Maximian's plan. It chronologically falls in the period after Maximian's departure from Italy and before the Carnuntum conference. The political situation prior to the Carnuntum conference was dangerously complicated. In the West, there were the Caesar Constantine in Gaul, the Augustus Maxentius in Italy, and the Augustus Maximian with ambitions to displace Constantine in Gaul. Maximianus Daja pleaded for higher authority in the East. At the same time Galerius wanted to appoint Licinius Augustus. Diocletian was obviously aware of the situation and accepted the role of the arbiter. The Carnuntum conference began on 11th November 308. Licinius' dies imperii was 18th November of the same year, which shows that the talks lasted one week and that decision was made on the last day of the conference. That day began the third tetrarchy under Diocletian's auspicies. It is quite sure that Maximian, Galerius, Licinius and Diocletian took part in the talks. All of them were mentioned by Lactantius, except for Licinius, but he could not have missed the meeting since his appointment had also been in consideration there. An inscription from Carnuntum is of great help in this respect. The inscription runs as follows: D(eo) S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae)/ fautori imperii sui /Iovii et Herculii /religiosissimi 5 / Augusti et Caesares / sacrarium / restituerunt. It is not very likely that the Augusti et Caesares (both in plural) would have been mentioned in their absence. There were only two Caesares (Constantine and Maximinus Daja). Is it possible that they did not participate? The conference was convoked by the upper rank Augustus Galerius and the senior Augustus Diocletian. Both Caesares could only gain, not lose by their presence. Constantine could expect to be recognized as Augustus. Maybe only Maximinus Daja's participation might be doubtful, since he resided in distant Antiochia. But he was obliged to obey his Augustus Galerius. On the other hand, he could also expect at least the recognition of his title Augusti filius. Therefore probably all of them were present. Maxentius was absent since he could not expect any support from the meeting. The results of the Carnuntum conference were as follows: Galerius as Augustus and Maximinus Daja as Caesar in the East, and Licinius as Augustus and Constantine as Caesar in the West. Both Maximian and Maxentius were punished for their usurpation of power. Obviously, Constantine and Maximinus Daja could not be satisfied. Maybe that instigated Constantine to seek the military solution in Italy. In Carnuntum Diocletian was not only an advisor but obviously a decision maker since Galerius' authority of the upper rank Augustus was weakened after his defeat in Italy. Diocletian was very well acquainted with the situation in the empire after his abdication, since the decisions at the Carnuntum conference were made within a week's time. Regardless of Diocletian's successful intervention at Carnuntum, the events in the state and especially in his family grew worse. Galerius died in early May 311. He was buried in Romuliana (Gamzigrad in Serbia). The Romuliana architecture (the first building phase) and decoration reveal the tetrarchic ideas and propaganda. Very important are three pillars (A-C) showing busts or entire figures of six emperors (unfortunately, the pillar C is not completely preserved). The reliefs portray two emperors in each of three clipea of a military vexillum. So there are six busts, which means that the tetrarchs of the first tetrarchy were depicted there (two Augusti, two Caesares as well as two Augusti seniores). Before his death Galerius proclaimed a liberty for Christianity. Judging from Diocletian's attitude in the period of the great persecutions (303-304) he was inclined to stop persecutions, since he was against the shedding of blood. Diocletian might have been consulted also with respect to that. Galerius' desease and death brought on further problems and caused great sorrow to Diocletian. After her husband's death Diocletian's daughter Valeria had no protection. Her mother Prisca was with her in Thessalonica during Galerius' sickness and death. Very probably she came there from Split in order to be with her daughter in her difficult moments. But only after Galerius' death great problems started. Valeria preferred being on Maximinus' territory, rather than on Licinius' as recommended by Galerius on his deathbed. After seizing Galerius' territories, Maximinus made marriage proposals to Valeria. This was unexpected but quite sensible since Valeria inherited Galerius' wealth which Maximinus wanted for himself. This marriage could also bring him the advantages of entering the family of the founder of tetrarchy, since Maximinus was not very popular or renowned. Valeria resolutely refused his proposal. The angry Maximinus punished both Valeria and Prisca by banishing them to the Syrian deserts. Valeria's exile lasted 15 months. After Maximinus' defeat near Hadrianopolis the situation became even worse, since Licinius claimed Galerius' wealth. Valeria bravely refused this claim of his, too. From the Split palace Diocletian asked Maximinus for return of his wife and daughter. Diocletian sent emissaries of high rank but all efforts were in vain. Very probably he also asked the same from Licinius, but to no avail. Only Galerius among all rulers of the third tetrarchy was loyal to Diocletian. A very significant event happened during the Emperor Diocletian's stay in Split. Although the story was only reported by the Epitome de Caesaribus, it seems reliable. According to the Epitome, Licinius and Constantine invited Diocletian in Milan to the wedding ceremony of Licinius and Constantia, the sister of Constantine. Diocletian excused himself due to his advanced age and weakness. Both Licinius and Constantine were offended. Afterwards Diocletian received letters in which they accused him of favouring Maxentius and Maximinus in the past. The story is based on actual events (the meeting of Constantine and Licinius, the wedding in Milan). However, it is not true that Diocletian favoured Maxentius and Maximinus Daja. He did not recognize Maxentius and refused to back Maximinus' ambitions at the Carnuntum conference. It is likely that Constantine and Licinius expected to be recognized by Diocletian as Augusti in the West. Most probably both emperors wanted to restore tetrarchy in order to avoid the problems with Maximinus. But after Maximinus' defeat near Hadrianopolis, this was no more necessary. Diocletian died in his residence between 313 and 316. Lactantius reports that the emperor was not only affected by the poor fate of his wife and daughter but was also deeply saddened by the deliberate destruction of images representing him and Maximian shoulder to shoulder. Diocletian's death comes in Lactantius' narrative before Maximinus Daja's death (April 313). But some other sources date Diocletian's demise in 316. Since Lactantius made several chronological mistakes, which were the consequence of his efforts to achieve literary effects, it is possible that even in this case he was wrong. The sources date Diocletian's death to 3rd December 316. Some of them are reliable, as for example Berlin Papyrus 13296. It is not very probable that Diocletian committed suicide while his wife and daughter were still alive. This decision could have only been made after Licinius had ordered the execution of Diocletian's wife and daughter in Thessalonica. According to Eutropius, Diocletian was divinized. Since only emperors could be accepted among gods, Diocletian was obviously regarded as emperor during his retirement. His name was erased only on a small number of inscriptions in the entire Roman world. In an inscription from Salona Diocletian's name remained intact. The miliary stones with his name were not erased either. The inscription from Donje Butorke in the vicinity of Kladovo (in Serbia) with names of all rulers of the first tetrarchy is very significant. Among those names, only Maximian's was chiseled off. This occurred obviously after Maximian's death in 310. Diocletian was buried in a porphyry sarcophagus. The fragments of such a sarcophagus were found in the vicinity of the Mausoleum in Split. His memory was surely cherished by mid-4th century when (according to Ammianus Marcellinus XVI, 8, 4) a purple veil from Diocletian's tomb was stolen. At that time his grave was still intact. The architectural program and decorations of Diocletian's Palace in Split reflect his functions of the senior Augustus.
英文关键词	Diocletian Diocletian's Palace tetrarchy
类型	Article
语种	其他
开放获取类型	DOAJ Gold
收录类别	ESCI
WOS记录号	WOS:000210109800011
WOS类目	History
WOS研究方向	History
资源类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://119.78.100.177/qdio/handle/2XILL650/329379
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Cambi, Nenad. Diocletian in the Split Palace[J],2010,42(1):169-194.
APA	Cambi, Nenad.(2010).Diocletian in the Split Palace.RADOVI-ZAVODA ZA HRVATSKU POVIJEST,42(1),169-194.
MLA	Cambi, Nenad."Diocletian in the Split Palace".RADOVI-ZAVODA ZA HRVATSKU POVIJEST 42.1(2010):169-194.

条目包含的文件
条目无相关文件。

个性服务

谷歌学术

百度学术

必应学术

相关权益政策

收藏/分享