power. The political influences of the Hellenistic East, however, gradually changed the original extent of the power of the Roman Principes, who very soon showed their preference for the East and its conceptions of imperial power. Suetonius says of the emperor of the first century, Caligula, that he was ready to accept the imperial crown-the diadem; 38 then, according to the sources, the emperor of the first half of the third century, Elagabalus, already wore the diadem in privacy; 39 and it is well known that the emperor of the second half of the third century, Aurelian, was the first one to wear the diadem publicly, while the inscriptions and coins call him "God" and "Lord" (Deus Aurelianus, Imperator Deus et Dominus Aurelianus Augustus).40 It was Aurelian who established the autocratic form of government in the Roman Empire.

It may be said that the process of development of the imperial power, primarily on the basis of Ptolemaic Egypt, was almost completed by the fourth century. Diocletian and Constantine desired to conclude the definite organization of the monarchy, and for this purpose they simply replaced the Roman institutions by customs and practices which predominated in the Hellenistic East, already known in Rome, especially since the time of Aurelian.

The times of trouble and the military anarchy of the third century greatly disturbed and disintegrated the internal organization of the empire. Aurelian re-established for a while its unity, for which achievement contemporary documents and inscriptions bestow upon him the name of the "restorer of the Empire" (Restitutor Orbis). But after his death a period of unrest followed. It was then that Diocletian set himself the goal of re-establishing the entire state organism and directing it along the path of normal and orderly organization. As a matter of fact, however, he simply accomplished a great administrative reform. But nevertheless both Diocletian and Constantine introduced administrative changes of such extreme importance to the internal organization of the empire that they may be considered the true founders of a new type of monarchy, created, as pointed out previously, under the strong influence of the East.

38 Suetonii, Caligula, 22: nec multum afuit quin statim diadema sumeret.

S9 Lampridii, Ant. Heliogabalus, 23, 5: quo (diademate gemmato) et usus est domi. 40 L. Homo, Essai sur règne de l'empereur Aurelien (Paris, 1904), pp. 191–93.

Diocletian, who spent much of his time in Nicomedia and was on the whole favorably inclined toward the East, adopted many characteristics of the Eastern monarchies. He was a true autocrat, an emperor-god, who wore the imperial diadem. Oriental luxury and the complex ceremonial were introduced at his court. His subjects, when granted audience, had to fall on their knees before they dared lift their eyes to view their sovereign. Everything concerning the Emperor was considered sacred: he himself was a sacred person, his words, his court, his treasury, etc., were sacred. The Emperor was surrounded by a large court, which Constantine later transferred to Constantinople. It absorbed large sums of money and became the center of numerous plots and intrigues which caused very serious complications in the later periods of Byzantine life. Thus, autocracy, in a form closely related to Oriental despotism, was definitely established by Diocletian and became one of the distinguishing marks of government structure in the Byzantine Empire.

In order to systematize the administration of the vast Empire, which included many races, Diocletian introduced the system of tetrarchy, i.e., "of the power of four persons." The administrative power was divided among two Augusti, who had equal plenipotence. One of them was to live in the eastern, and the other in the western, part of the empire; but both had to work in the interests of one Roman state. The empire remained undivided; the appointment of two Augusti, however, indicated that the government recognized even in those days a difference between the Greek East and the Latin West, and that the administration of both could not be intrusted to the same person. Each Augustus was to be assisted by a Caesar, who, in case of the death or retirement of the Augustus, became the Augustus and selected a new Caesar. This created a sort of artificial dynastic system which was supposed to do away with all conflicts and conspiracies which usually originated in the ambitions of various competitors. This system also meant to deprive the legions of their decisive influence at the time of election of a new emperor. The first two Augusti were Diocletian and Maximian, and their Caesars were Galerius and Constantius Chlorus, the father of Constantine the Great. Diocletian retained his Asiatic provinces, Thrace and Egypt, with headquarters at Nicomedia; Maximian kept Italy, Africa, and Spain, with headquarters at Mediolanum (Milan);

Galerius kept the Balkan peninsula (excluding Thrace) and the adjoining Danubian provinces, with a center at Sirmium on the River Save (near present-day Mitrovitz); and Constantius Chlorus kept Gaul and Britain, with centers at Augusta Trevirorum (Trier, Treves) and Eburacum (York). All four rulers were considered as rulers of a single empire, and all government decrees were issued in the name of all four. While theoretically the two Augusti were equal in their power, Diocletian, as an emperor, had a decided advantage over the other. The Caesars were subjects of the Augusti. After a certain period of time the Augusti had to lay down their titles and transfer them to the Caesars. In fact Diocletian and Maximian did lay down their titles in 305 and retired to private life. Galerius and Constantius Chlorus became the Augusti. But the troubles which followed put an end to the artificial system of tetrarchy, which had ceased to exist already at the beginning of the fourth century.

Great changes were introduced by Diocletian in the provincial government. During his reign the distinction between senatorial and imperial provinces disappeared; all provinces were in direct dependence on the emperor. Formerly, the provinces being comparatively few and territorially very large, their governors had enormous power in their hands. This condition created many dangerous situations for the central government; revolts were frequent and the governors of these large provinces, supported by their legions, were often serious pretenders to the imperial throne. Diocletian, wishing to do away with the political menace of the large provinces, decided to divide them into smaller units. Out of fifty-seven provinces in existence at the time of his ascension he formed ninety-six, and perhaps more.

We do not know the exact number of smaller provinces created by Diocletian because of the unsatisfactory information given by our sources. The main source on the provincial structure of the Empire at this time is the so-called Notitia dignitatum, an official list of court, civil, and military offices, containing also a list of provinces. But, according to scholarly investigations, this undated document refers to the first half of the fifth century, hence it includes the changes in provincial government introduced by the successors of Diocletian. The Notitia dignitatum numbers 120 provinces.

Other lists, also of doubtful but earlier dates, give a smaller number of provinces." It must be generally kept in mind that many details of Diocletian's reforms are not yet available because of the lack of adequate sources on the subject.

In Diocletian's time the Empire was divided into two prefectures headed by two praetorian prefects (praefecti praetorio), one for each Augustus. The prefectures were divided into dioceses, which, according to the earlier List of Verona, number twelve; each diocese was divided into a certain number of provinces.

In order still more to secure his power against possible provincial complications, Diocletian strictly separated military authority from civil authority; from his time onward the provincial governors had only judicial and administrative functions.

The provincial reforms of Diocletian affected Italy in particular; from the leading district she was transformed into a mere province, and Rome, the ancient capital of a world-empire, was reduced to the position of an ordinary provincial city.

The administrative reforms brought about a large number of new officials and created a complex bureaucratic system with numerous offices and various titles, as well as a strict subjection of the lower officials to the higher.

Constantine the Great further developed and enlarged in some respects the reorganization of the empire begun by Diocletian.

Thus the chief characteristic features of Diocletian's and Constantine's reforms were the definite establishment of absolute monarchical power and a strict separation of military and civil functions, which led to the creation of a very numerous bureaucracy. During the Byzantine period the first feature, i.e., the unlimited power of the emperor, was preserved; the second one experienced a great change due to a constant tendency to concentrate in the same hands military and civil authority. The numerous offices and titles were retained in the Byzantine Empire. This bureaucratic system survived to the last years of the Empire, but it passed through many changes in the nature of the functions and the names of the digni

Between 426 and 437. See J. B. Bury, "The Notitia Dignitatum," Journal of Roman Studies, X (1920), 153; Idem, "The Provincial List of Verona," ibid., XIII (1923), 127-48.

taries. Most of the titles were changed from Latin to Greek; many offices degenerated into mere titles or ranks, and a number of new offices and dignities were created during subsequent periods.

A very important factor in the history of the Empire in the fourth century was the gradual immigration of the barbarians, namely, the Germans (Goths). A more detailed discussion of this question will have to be postponed and taken up when it will be possible to speak of the fourth century in its entirety.

Constantine the Great died in 337 A.D. His activities met a very rare appreciation from different points of view: the Roman senate, according to the historian of the fourth century, Eutropius, enrolled Constantine among the gods; 2 history has named him the "Great," and the church proclaimed him a saint and equal of the Apostles.

42

An English scholar of the nineteenth century remarks, "If we compared Constantine with any great man of modern times, it would rather be with Peter of Russia than with Napoleon."43

Eusebius of Caesarea, in his "Panegyric of Constantine," wrote that after triumphant Christianity had put an end to the creations of Satan, i.e., the false gods, pagan states had been destroyed.

One God was proclaimed to all mankind. At the same time one universal power, the Roman Empire, arose and flourished. At the selfsame period, by the express appointment of the same God, two roots of blessing, the Roman Empire and the doctrine of Christian piety, sprang up together for the benefit of men. . . . . Two mighty powers starting from the same point, the Roman Empire swayed by a single sovereign and the Christian religion, subdued and reconciled all these contending elements.“

THE EMPERORS FROM CONSTANTINE THE GREAT UNTIL THE

EARLY PART OF THE SIXTH CENTURY

After the death of Constantine his three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, each assumed the title of Augustus and divided between themselves the rule of the Empire. A struggle soon

42 Eutropii, Breviarium, X, 8.

43 A Dictionary of Christian Biography, "Constantine I," (1877), 644. Cf. above, Duruy, VII, 88 (the English translation, VII [2], 519).

Eusebii, De laudibus Constantini, XVI, 3–5 (Eusebius Werke, von I. Heikel [Leipzig, 1902], I, 249). English translation in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (ad series, I, 606).