Abstract
The final chapter moves forward a quarter of a century to an empire inherited by Constantine’s sons. It examines the case of Magnentius, a general who eliminated Constans, Constantine’s youngest son, and ruled almost all of the west until he was defeated by Constantius II, the last surviving son of Constantine. Two cases of political disgrace are considered: that of Constans, and then that of Magnentius himself, with epigraphic evidence the central focus. As with the case of Licinius, this chapter shines light on the roles which commemoration and disgrace played in contested and rapidly changing political environments, placing emphasis on the roles which disparate individuals played in these transitions. Ultimately, both Constans and Magnentius became scapegoats, condemned in isolation, and thus facilitating the survival and absolution of the majority of those who served under them and lived through these uncertain times.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Pan. Lat. III(11) 13.2–3 (after Nixon and Rodgers trans.): non paucos huiusmodi furore vecordes etiam nostra aetas tulit, qui propter caecam imperandi cupidinem in ferrum ruerunt. Si hos deus paulisper vitae redditos adloquatur: ‘Heus’, verbi gratia, ‘Nepotiane atque Silvane, per infestos gladios praesentesque mortes imperium petivistis.’
- 3.
See Nixon and Saylor Rodgers (1994: 413, n.86) for the ‘charming novelty’ of the discussion of usurpers in a speech delivered in praise of an individual who had recently usurped the position of senior emperor. The topic implies Julian’s legitimacy in contrast with these unsuccessful imperial claimants.
- 4.
Eutr. Brev. 10.9, Jer. Chron. 235a H, Epit. de Caes. 41.20–21, Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 2.5, Zonar. 13.5. Zosimus’s account has Constans as the aggressor (2.41), which is unlikely given Constantine was killed in his youngest brother’s territories.
- 5.
Cod. Theod. 11.12.1.
- 6.
Zonaras claims that Constantius lost nearly half of his men, and Magnentius lost two-thirds of his army, a total of over 50,000 dead (8.8). Jerome describes Mursa as the battle ‘in which the Roman forces were ruined’ (in quo proelio Romanae vires conciderunt: Jer. Chron. 238d H). See also Eutr. Brev. 10.12, Epit. de Caes. 42.4, Oros. 7.29.12.
- 7.
See Humphries (2002: 80) for how Julian’s usurpation in Gaul would have been seen as reminiscent of Magnentius’, and Nixon and Saylor Rodgers (1994: 387–388) for Mamertinus’ Gallic origins, and what this might mean for his activities during Magnentius’ reign (‘his silence may denote embarrassment, sympathy, or tact’).
- 8.
- 9.
Athanassiadi (1992: 61–62) and Tougher (2012: 21), expresses a preference for 356 for Or. 1. See Drake 2012: 39 for a discussion of the various datings of Or. 2, which stretch from late 357 to 360. Both should be contextualised within diplomatic overtures from Julian as Caesar in Gaul to his cousin as Augustus, and it is possible that neither were actually delivered, and that Constantius might have never even received copies of them: Tougher (2012: 22) and Drake (2012: 39).
- 10.
- 11.
A recent advocate of this viewpoint is Harries, who has dismissed Magnentius as a ‘regional emperor’ and a ‘failed local ruler’ (2012: 114–115). She also downplays Constans’ unpopularity, arguing that his elimination was ‘the result of a private grudge on the part of an apprehensive official and not the outcome of widespread discontent among the military or the wider population’ (196).
- 12.
Quotation from Van Dam (2011: 49), referring to both Vetranio and Magnentius. See also Kent (1981: 12) for an evaluation of Magnentius’ policies as ‘essentially opportunistic’, and Barnes (1993: 102) for how they ‘reflected both the weakness of his position as a usurper and his claim to replace an incompetent and corrupt regime’.
- 13.
Eutr. Brev. 10.9, Aur. Vict. Caes. 41, Epit. de Caes. 41.23–24, Zos. 2.42.2–3. For a recent analysis of literary evidence for Constans’ regime, see Woudhuysen (2018).
- 14.
Julian Or. 2 57.D. See Lee (2015: 103) for a discussion of the fact that, unlike in the case of Magnus Maximus 30 years later, Magnentius was not the most senior general or comes in the west at this time.
- 15.
Drinkwater (2000: 134).
- 16.
Drinkwater (2000: 135–136).
- 17.
Eutrop. Brev. 10.9.4, Epit. de Caes. 41.23, Zos. 2.42.5. Bagnall et al. (1987: 236–237).
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
Julian Or. 1 1A. The repetition of this ‘eloquence versus arms’ trope in accounts of Constantius’ civil wars written over the following two decades is testament to its lasting impact. See Aur. Vict. Caes. 42, Greg. Naz. Or. 34, Libanius Or. 1 81.
- 22.
Jer. Chron. 238a H, PLRE I, Heraclides 3, 418.
- 23.
Jerome’s Chronicle lists the death of Nepotianus directly afterwards (238b H), though it is unclear whether the first rebellion at Rome is slightly earlier and separate or instead connected to Nepotianus’. Aurelius Victor refers to the corruption of the common people as well as hatred of Magnentius as motivating factors for Nepotianus’ coup, which suggests the two might be connected. For the usurpation of Nepotianus see Aur. Vict. Caes. 42.3, who records that Magnentius’ urban prefect was killed in the uprising; Zos. 2.43.2–4, claims it was Magnentius’ praetorian prefect (who he names as Anicetus). See also Eutrop. Brev. 11, and Epit. de Caes. 42.3.
- 24.
Aur. Vict. Caes. 41.
- 25.
Burgess (2008: 10, n.34); PLRE I, Nepotianus 5, 624.
- 26.
Bird (1994: 200, n.6). Aur. Vict. Caes. 42.7 (after trans. Bird): Cuius stolidum ingenium adeo plebi Romanae patribusque exitio fuit, uti passim domus fora viae templaque cruore atque cadaveribus opplerentur bustorum modo.
- 27.
Ath. Ad Const. 6, Aur. Vict. Caes. 42, Eutrop. Brev. 11, Jer. Chron. 238b H.
- 28.
Themistius Or. 3 54C, Julian Or. 2 58C–D. See also Ad Const. 6, where Athanasius specifies the execution of Constantius’ aunt Eutropia, mother of Nepotianus, amongst other distinguished individuals in Rome.
- 29.
Themistius Or. 3 44A–B.
- 30.
For example, 18 Magnentian milestones in the Diocesis Italiae to only 4 of Constans as Augustus.
- 31.
E.g. magno: Rodrίguez Colmenero et al. no. 473; maximo: Rodrίguez Colmenero et al. nos. 258 and 306; victori et triumphatori: CIL II.4765, Rodrίguez Colmenero et al. no. 578; semper Augusto: CIL II.4840; terra marique victori: CIL II.4765; victori ac triumphatori perpetuo semper Augusto Alaman(n)ico maximo p(atri) p(atriae) procons(uli): Rodrίguez Colmenero et al. no. 253.
- 32.
As noted by Laurence (2004: 47).
- 33.
AE 1997.525, Fortini (1997: 315–321).
- 34.
See the series of milestones dedicated to Magnentius and Decentius radiating west out of the city of Carthage. For example, Decentius: AE 1987.1013c, CIL VIII.22184. Magnentius: AE 1987.1014b and 1108c, 1993.1716b, 2006.1786, CIL VIII.22193, 22,197.
- 35.
See 3 milestones in Mauretania Caesariensis, 2 with dedications to Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans (dated 337–340: CIL VIII.22558 and 22,555, the second more fragmentary and uncertain), and one dedicated to Constantius and Constans (dated 340–350: CIL VIII.22552). In all cases, Magnentius’ name seems to have been inscribed over an erasure of Constans. In a milestone near Theveste, the last line of a milestone dedicated to Constantine II as Augustus has been erased and Decentius’ name carved over the erasure, creating a composite college of the dead Constantine II as Augustus and Decentius as Caesar: ILAlg I.3909.
- 36.
- 37.
Poinssot (1933: 23).
- 38.
Beshchaouch (2005: 1083) interprets the inclusion of two unnamed proconsuls as an acknowledgment that the word extended over two tenures, first Constans’ administrator and then his successor appointed by Magnentius, who continued to fund the project and brought it to completion. The dedication of a new forum was a rare occurrence in Africa in this period see Lepelley (1979: 90–98, 1981: 147–148), Leone (2013: 35).
- 39.
For the dating of Decentius’ elevation, see Appendix 4.
- 40.
See, for example, the 4-month tenures of Lucius Turcius Apronianus from July to October 339 and Lollianus Mavortius from April until July 342. Equally, tenures of 17 to 24 months are also attested, for example, Fabius Titianus’ first prefecture (October 339 to February 341), and the tenures of Petronius Probianus (October 329 to April 331), Sextus Anicius Faustus Paulinus (April 331 to April 333), and Aconius Catullinus Philomathius (July 342 to April 344).
- 41.
All issues were in base billion; gold was only struck in Constantius’ name in Rome during the brief revolt of Nepotianus (June 350), Kent (1981: 40). See Kent (1981: 198) for the continued use of Constans’ coin-types for Magnentius in Trier, and Shelton (1982: 211–235) for further evidence for continuity of mint personnel from Constans to Magnentius.
- 42.
In his 1st oration, Julian is defensive about how long it took for Constantius to head west to face Magnentius, claiming that the emperor had resolved to confront the usurper the moment he heard of the rebellion, but was diverted by Persian attack designed to take advantage of this distraction by renewing hostilities on the eastern frontier: Julian Or. 1 27A.
- 43.
In both orations, Julian makes the point that, when Constans had absorbed Constantine II’s territories after his death in 340, Constantius would have been justified in taking military action against his younger brother, but only relented because he deemed that a civil conflict was not in their subjects’ interest: Julian Or. 1 20A, Or. 2 94C–D.
- 44.
Socrates, Hist. eccl. 2.22.4. For a detailed discussion of this period, see Barnes (1993: Chapter 7).
- 45.
Jer. Chron. 238c.
- 46.
Ad Const. 9. See Barnes (1993: 102–103) for further discussion.
- 47.
Peter ELGR 14 (Banchich 2015 F. 231), Zonar. 13.7. For Rufinus as praetorian prefect in Illyricum see PLRE I, Vulcanius Rufinus 25, 782–783, and Banchich (2015: 147). Note that Peter claims that all the ambassadors except Rufinus were arrested and retained by Constantius, which contradicts Julian’s account of Marcellinus’ death at Mursa, after taking command of Magnentius’ army following the emperor’s flight. Julian claims that Marcellinus’ body was never recovered, which he takes as a sign as a fitting punishment of oblivion: Or. 2 58B.
- 48.
Amm. Marc. 16.6.2. For a discussion of the episode, including the precise nature of Dorus’ position and Adelfius’ treason, see Barnes (2006). See Fortini (1997: 319–321) for Adelfius’ conspiracy as evidence for a pro-Constantian senatorial faction in Rome using Magnentius’ defeat at Mursa as an opportunity to oust him. Cameron (2011: 33, 336) argues that Adelfius left to join Constantius after his office ended in December 351.
- 49.
Barnes (2006: 249).
- 50.
Julian Or. 1 38C, 48.B, Or. 2 97.B. Chastagnol (1960: 421) insists this took place before Mursa, though it is unclear on what basis.
- 51.
- 52.
CIL VI.1166a: now lost. CIL VI.1167: now fragmentary.
- 53.
Jer. Chron. 236d H, Zos. 2.49.1. See Humphries (2003: 38).
- 54.
- 55.
Chastagnol (1960: 420).
- 56.
Whilst Chastagnol (1960: 420–421) admits that a minority of aristocrats supported Magnentius, he insists that the great majority shunned him. However, he views the emperor’s barbarian origins as a major factor in this lack of support, which reflects pro-Constantian invective rather than reality. He also views the usurpation within the context of pagan revivalism in mid- to late fourth-century Rome, identifying both the emperor and all of the aristocrats who supported him as pagans. See Salzman (1990: 209–211) for an insistence that the usurpation was not motivated by religious policies, and that Christian aristocrats, such as the Anicii, also supported Magnentius. See Cameron (2011) for a wider critique of the scholarly views on ‘pagan revivalism’ in late antique Rome.
- 57.
PLRE I, Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius 11, 747–749, Chastagnol (1962: 96–102). Forum of Trajan: CIL VI.40776. House of the Valerii: CIL VI.1690–1693. Uncertain provenance: CIL VI.1694. For the Caelian site where the domus of the Valerii family was located, see Barbera et al. (2008).
- 58.
LSA-2685 (C. Machado).
- 59.
See Drinkwater (2000: esp. 143–145) for the fullest discussion of Magnentius’ ethnicity and its implications. As he argues, Magnentius ‘could not have been in any way barbarian’ by the standards of the time, since he was considered a suitable candidate as emperor by the anti-Constans faction, and more attention was drawn to his family by the subsequence appointment of his kinsman Decentius as his Caesar.
- 60.
Aur. Vict. Caes. 41.25 (trans. Bird): quae tamen vitia utinam mansissent! Namque Magnentii, utpote gentis barbarae, diro atrocique ingenio … adeo exstincta omnia sunt.
- 61.
Julian Or. 2 95C–D (trans. Wright): ἀναιδὴς καὶ τραχὺς βάρβαρος τῶν ἑαλωκότων οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ; Or. 1 34A: τῆς ἀπὸ Γερμανῶν λείας λείψανον δυστυχὲς περισωζόμενον. ἂρχειν δὲ ἡμῶν ἐπιχειρῶν, ᾣ μηδὲ ἐλευθέρῳ προςῆκον ἦν νομισθῆναι.
- 62.
Julian Or. 1 42A (trans. Wright): οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐμφύλιον ἄξιον προσαγορεύειν τὸν πόλεμον, οὑ βάρβαρος ἦν ἡγεμὼν ἑαυτὸν ἀναγορεύσας βασιλέα καὶ χειροτονήσας στρατηγόν.
- 63.
Julian Or. 1 38B; Or. 2 96A, 100A.
- 64.
Gallia (2012: esp. 12–46).
- 65.
For example, on coinage: Sutherland (1967) RIC VI: Rome, nos. 303–304. In panegyric: Pan. Lat. XII(9) 2.4, 3.3. The Arch of Constantine (‘liberatori urbis’): CIL VI.1139. Two bases dedicated to Constantine in Cirta: ILAlg 2.581 (‘restitutori libertatis et conservatori totius orbis’) and ILAlg 2.584 (‘perpetuae securitatis ac libertatis auctori’). Milestones with ‘liberatori orbis terrarium’: CIL IX.6038; CIL X.6932. For liberation ideology in Constantine’s edicts see Chapter 3.
- 66.
Virtus type: Kent (1981) RIC VIII, Aquileia, no. 129. ‘Of the Romans’ type: Trier, nos. 245–254; Rome, nos. 162–165, 169–173; Aquileia, nos. 125–126, 132–137. ‘Of the state’ type: Aquileia, nos. 122, 127–128. See also a rare solidus, struck in Magnentius’ name in Rome after the elimination of Nepotianus, which frames the emperor’s removal of Nepotianus as a second restoration of libertas to the city of Rome (‘bis restituta libertas’: Rome, no. 168).
- 67.
Kent (1981: 309–311). RIC VIII, Aquileia, nos. 122 and 127.
- 68.
See Miškec (2011) for a full reconstruction and analysis of the hoard, which was largely dispersed by the workmen who discovered it.
- 69.
All of the coins were struck at Aquileia. Their near-perfect condition suggests that the owner obtained them directly from the city’s mint, just over a 100 km to the west. Miškec (2011: 825) identifies six different issues with multiple dies, indicating a considerable quantity had been made.
- 70.
Eutr. Brev. 9: intolerabilis provincialibus militi iniucundus.
- 71.
The remarkable detail of Zosimus’ account of Magnentius’ rule in comparison to his narrative of the previous 20 years, recording minute tactical features and even imagining the internal deliberations of the emperor (e.g. 2.46.2–3), indicates that the material was drawn from a comprehensive source which has not survived. It has been suggested that this might have been the Constantini bellum adversus Magnentium, a poem in praise of Constantius II attributed to Faltonia Betita Proba, wife of Magnentius’ 4th urban prefect, Clodius Celsinus Adelfius (/Adelphus): Ridley (1982: 165, n.118). See also Matthews (1992: 291–297) for a broader discussion of Proba’s possible presentation of this poem to Constantius II during his visit in 357.
- 72.
A single milestone from Montijo in Lusitania, which held a much earlier inscription of Constantine, was re-inscribed with a dedication to Magnentius: AE 1999.878. However, the re-inscription of milestones was a common phenomenon and should not be attributed as an attack on the earlier dedication (especially if, as in this case, the new inscription did not obscure the old).
- 73.
ILAlg III-2.7874: a base set up in the old forum of Cuicul, where the first line of the inscription, roughly erased, is still legible as ‘Consta[n]ti[o]’. G. de Bruyn (LSA-2251) expresses for the identification of the victim as Constantius I, explaining the erasure as taking place during the reign of Maxentius (306–312), and stating that ‘there are no known political circumstance that could have led to the erasure of the name of Constantius II’. Pflaum (2003 no. 7874) thinks Constantius II is the more likely candidate. Given that Maxentius presented Constantius I as his deified relation in coinage, it is feasible that this is a later erasure of Constantius II executed when Magnentius controlled Africa.
- 74.
CIL VI.1653a, 1653b, 1653c, 37,107, 31,879, 31,880. A 7th (CIL VI.37108) is now fragmentary, leaving it uncertain as to whether it should be dated to Titianus’ first or second prefecture. See Machado (2006: 179–185) for a discussion of the bases in the Forum Romanum.
- 75.
Also see CIL VI.1654, another base without a subject that was set up by Titianus as urban prefect iterum.
- 76.
CIL VI.40782, LSA-1549, Ciancio Rossetto (1982: 571). The base is currently inaccessible, but has been photographed (CIL VI pars. 8 Fasc. 2 p.4559).
- 77.
Ciancio Rossetto (1982: 571–573).
- 78.
His personal agency is implied by C. Machado in LSA-1549.
- 79.
Another base dedicated by Celsinus, in this case in Uthina in Proconsularis during his earlier term as proconsul of Africa (337–339), has also been interpreted as a political attack, since it now holds the name of Constantius carved into a lacuna caused by a previous erasure: Merlin (1944: no. 757). Ben Abdallah et al. (1998: 80) hypothesised that the base was originally dedicated to Constans during Celsinus’ proconsulship and that his name was erased during the time of Magnentius, and then replaced with Constantius II’s name after he won control of this region. G. de Bruyn (LSA-2242) finds this interpretation reasonable, though there is no way of telling if the base was rededicated to Magnentius in the meantime.
- 80.
PLRE I, Turcius Apronianus signo Asterius 10, 88–89.
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.
Text after reconstruction of Ceballos Hornero (2004 no. 148). See 116–118 for his compilation of the various suggestions which have been proposed for the inscription’s lacunae.
- 84.
See a comparative example of a dedicatory inscription from the city (AE 1975.473), where Constantine is praised as maximus debellator et victor gentium barbarum (‘greatest conqueror and victor over barbarian peoples’), but his brothers Constantius and Constans are merely named.
- 85.
Humphrey (1986: 375).
- 86.
Constantine II’s name has also been roughly chiselled off a second inscription in Emerita which commemorated the restoration of the city’s theatre. However, it is now fragmentary, with the section which held Constans’ name missing, so we cannot know whether the youngest brother was erased after his own downfall a decade later: AE 1935.4, Ceballos Hornero (2004: 613–616).
- 87.
Humphrey (1986: 372–374).
- 88.
Both Saturninus and Laetus are known only from the circus inscription: PLRE I, Tiberius Flav. Laetus 1, 492, Iulius Saturninus 13, 808.
- 89.
See Humphrey (1986: 373) on how the wording of the circus inscription ‘clearly indicates that this was a government enterprise, not something left to provincial initiative’, and Chastagnol (1976: 259–276) for the wider Constantinian epigraphic material from the city.
- 90.
- 91.
CIL XII.3582, InscrIt-4–1.82. A matching panel, commemorating the restoration of a bridge, also survives from Tivoli: CIL XIV.3583, InscrIt-4–1-83. A large portion of the upper panel is missing and the top half has been chiselled back to facilitate its reuse, making it impossible to tell whether the Constans’ name has been erased.
- 92.
CIL XI.4095, Fagan (2002: 274–275).
- 93.
AE 1934.133, ILTun.622.
- 94.
CIL VIII.7013, Lepelley (1981: 439, no. 6), LSA-2321.
- 95.
CIL VIII.7012, IlAlg 2-590, LSA-2327
- 96.
Aur. Caes 40.28.
- 97.
ILAlg 2.581–586. For the city of Cirta-Constantina and its connection with the Constantinian dynasty, see Lenski (2016: 141–144).
- 98.
CIL XIV.3582 (p. 384): sine dubio iussu Magnentii. Dessau more accurately explains this erasure as taking place ‘during the time’ of Magnentius’ rule (ILS.239, p. 163: ‘temporibus sine dubio Magnentii’).
- 99.
Examples: Sicily: CIL X.7200, a bathhouse inscription with a dedication to Constantius and Constans. Rome: CIL VI.40840, a statue base dedication to Constans as Caesar; CIL VI.40790, a base for a statue of Constantine’s daughter Constantina where Constantine II’s name had previously been removed.
- 100.
See also Eutropius, writing during the Valentinian dynasty, who claims that Constantius ‘provoked a civil war’ in order to avenge his brother’s death (9.11: ad ultionem fraternae necis bellum civile commoverat), and Zosimus, who emphasises Constantius’ need for vengeance when he rejects the terms of Magnentius’ emissary Titianus (2.49.2).
- 101.
For example, Julian praises Constantius for placing the common good above his own private sentiments: Or. 1 33D. See also Or. 1 42A, Or. 2 58D.
- 102.
See Heather and Moncur (2001: 72) who argue that if Constantius had come to terms with Magnentius, (however temporarily) the situation ‘would have demanded much justificatory condemnation of Constans’.
- 103.
See n.73 above.
- 104.
Athan. Ad Const. 3.3: Κώνσταντι, τῷ εὐσεβεστάτῳ Αὐγούστῳ.
- 105.
The birthdays of divus Constantine and divus Constantius I are listed, along with the birthday of Constantius II, but neither Constans nor Constantine II are mentioned: Strzygowski (1888, Fig. 9).
- 106.
PLRE I, Neratius Cerealis 2, 197–199, Chastagnol (1960: 521, 1962: 135–139) claims that Cerealis rallied to Constantius when Magnentius initially seized power, rather than after Mursa in 351. He is reported as participating in Constantius’ deposition of bishop Photinus in October 351: Socrates 2.29, Sozomen 4.6.
- 107.
Cod. Theod. 15.4.5 (after Pharr trans.): quae tyrannus vel eius iudices contra ius statuerunt, infirmari iubemus reddita possessione expulsis, ut qui vult ab initio agat. emancipationes autem et manumissiones et pacta sub eo facta et transactiones valere oportet.
- 108.
Traces of an erased inscription on the right side indicates the earlier dedication used the shorter end of the base, and the block was re-orientated as well as moved when it was rededicated: CIL VI.1158, LSA-838 (C. Machado).
- 109.
CIL VI.1139.
- 110.
CIL VI.40768.
- 111.
The inscription was recorded in the ninth-century Codex Einsidlensis and is also mentioned in the Notitiae Urbis Romae: C. Machado (LSA-1263). It was dedicated by Anicius Paulinus Iunior as prefect from 334–335: PLRE I, Paulinus 14, 679.
- 112.
Humphries (2015: 159).
- 113.
CIL VI.1167, LSA-1284 (C. Machado), Gordon (1983: 121–122).
- 114.
CIL 6.1166a, 1656b, 31882b, LSA-1281 (C. Machado).
- 115.
CIL 6.1166b. C. Machado (LSA-1282) suggests the base was rededicated to Constantius, though this cannot be confirmed since name of the honorand is not preserved.
- 116.
Camodeca (1978).
- 117.
AE 1951.17, PLRE I, Flavius Romulus 3, 711.
- 118.
AE 1975.358.
- 119.
Camodeca (1978: 152).
- 120.
Ancona: CIL IX.5940, Donati (1974 no. 55); Forum Livii (Forli): CIL XI.6640.
- 121.
AE 1987.1013c. The erasure means the text is only partially legible, so the identification as Decentius is not certain.
- 122.
Rodrίguez Colmenero et al. (2004). See, for example, the concentration of milestones surrounding and inside the city of Bracaca Augusta (modern Braga in Portugal), where a milestone of Magnentius (no. 38) is located within sight of milestones of Constantius II (no. 35) and Constantine I (no. 31), and on the same circuit as ones of Constantine II (nos. 32–33) and Constans (no. 34).
- 123.
Cod. Theod. 9.38.2.
- 124.
Or. 2 58.B–C (trans Wright): ὧσπερ δε ἒκ τινος ταλαιπωρίας και ἄλης δυστυχοῦς τῆς ξύν τῷ τυράννῳ βιοτῆς κατάγειν σφᾶς ἐπ’ ἀκεραίοις τοῖς πρόσθεν ἠξίου. See also Or. 1 38.B–D, for Constantius’ issuing of an amnesty after Mursa.
- 125.
Julian Or. 1 37B: γέροντος δυστυχοῦς. See Zos. 2.48.3, for Constantius’ selection of Mursa as suitable site for battle due to its proximity to Cibalae, since this where Constantine had defeated Licinius in 316.
- 126.
Such as Gerontius, a comes of Magnentius, whose torture and exile he describes: Leppin (2015: 203).
- 127.
In Or. 1 38B, Julian claims that the amnesty was grated to all who sided with Magnentius, ‘excepted when they had shared the guilt of those infamous murders’ (trans. Wright: πλὴν εἴ τις ἀνοσίων ἐκείνῳ φόνων ἐκοινώνει). In Or. 2 96A, Julian makes reference to the forgiveness Constantius demonstrated to all of Magnentius’ supporters, including those who had carried out the worst crimes, Magnentius’ closest companions, and those who ‘had stooped to win a tale-bearer’s fee by slandering the emperor’ (οὐδὲ μὴν εἴ τις ἐκείνῳ χαριζόμενος φέρειν τε ἠξίου κηρύκιον καὶ ἐλοιδορεῖτο βασιλεῖ). Accordingly, Jones et al. (PLRE I, 919) suggest that Titianus should be identified as this individual who both Julian and later Themistius (Or. 3 62C, Or. 6 80C, Or. 7 97C), identify as having insulted Constantius but had not been punished. However, Chastagnol 1962: 111 interprets these references as Titianus being spared execution but having his property confiscated, and references Titianus’ erased name from the Oppian base as evidence for his political disgrace. However, it should be noted that Julian’s references to the precise individuals and penalties involved are very vague and unspecific—presumably intentionally so—so we cannot be certain whether the senator was punished, or the extent of these punishments.
- 128.
He is recorded as erased from the lost Oppian base dedicated to Magnentius (CIL VI.1166a), and from the re-dedicated base of Constans (CIL VI.4133a). His name is not erased in the extant dedication to Magnentius from the Aventine where the emperor’s name was erased (CIL VI.1167), nor was he erased from any of the ten statue bases which date from his first prefecture. One base (CIL VI.37107) remains in situ in front of the Basilica Aemilia.
- 129.
See Humphries (2015: 158–160) for the visit’s significance in the context of the senatorial support for Magnentius.
- 130.
Amm. Marc. 17.4. Ammianus places the event in the second urban prefecture of Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus (January 357 to March 359), who had previously held the prefecture directly after Cerealis (December 353 to July 355). For the relationship between Ammianus’ account and the obelisk’s poem, see Kelly (2008: 225–230).
- 131.
CIL VI.1163, ILS 736.
- 132.
Julian Caes. 316A, Zos. 2.54 (trans. Ridley): ὥστε γνωσθῆναι περὶ αὐτοῦ τἀληθῆ, [καὶ] ὡς οὐδὲν ἐξ ἀγαθῆς αὐτῷ πεποίηται προαιρέσεως.
- 133.
See Flower (2016 esp. 19–20).
References
Modern Sources
Arce, J. (2002). Mérida Tardoromana, 300–580 d.C. Mérida.
Athanassiadi, P. (1992). Julian: An Intellectual Biography. London.
Bagnall, R., Cameron, A., Schwartz, S. R., and Worp, K. A. (1987). Consuls of the Later Roman Empire. Atlanta.
Banchich, T. M. (2015). The Lost History of Peter the Patrician. London.
Barbera, M., Paladino, S., and Paterna, C. (2008). ‘La domus dei Valerii sul Celio alla luce delle recente scoperte.’ Papers of the British School at Rome 76: 75–98.
Barnes, T. D. (1993). Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge, MA.
———. (2006). ‘An Urban Prefect and His Wife.’ Classical Quarterly 56.1: 249–256.
Ben Abdallah, Z., Ben Hassen, H., and Maurin, L. (1998). ‘L’histoire d’Uthina par les textes.’ In Oudhna (Uthina), La redécouverte d'une ville antique de Tunisie, eds. H. Ben Hassen and L. Maurin. Bordeaux: 37–91.
Beschaouch, A. (2005). ‘Un témoignage sur la prospérité de l’Afrique proconsulaire au milieu du IV siècle: le forum transitorium aménagé à Mustis sous Magnence et Décence.’ Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 149.3: 1071–1084.
Bleckmann, B. (1994). ‘Constantina, Vetranio und Gallus Caesar.’ Chiron 24: 29–68.
Bodel, J. (1999). ‘Punishing Piso.’ American Journal of Philology 120.1 (477): 43–64.
Burgess, R. W. (2008). ‘The Summer of Blood: The “Great Massacre” of 337 and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine.’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62: 5–51.
Cahn, H. A. (1987). ‘Abolitio Nominis de Constantin II.’ In Mélanges de Numismatique, offerts à Pierre Bastien à l’occasion de son 75e Anniversaire, eds. H. Huvelin, M. Christol, and G. Gaultier. Wetteren: 201–202.
Cameron, A. (2011). The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford.
Camodeca, G. (1978). ‘Per la redazione del fasti delle province italiche: Fl. Romulus, consularis Flaminiae et Piceni nel 352(-3).’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 28: 151–158.
Campedelli, C. (2015). ‘La strana vicenda di una statua di Iuppiter Optimus Maximus a Mustis.’ In L’Africa Romana: Momenti di continuetà e rottura: bilancio di trent’anni di convegni L’Africa Romana, ed. P. Ruggeri. Rome.
Ceballos Hornero, A. (2004). Los espectáculos en la Hispania romana: la documentación epigráfica. Mérida.
Chastagnol, A. (1960). La préfecture urbaine à Rome sous le Bas-Empire. Paris.
———. (1962). Les fastes de la préfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire. Études Paris.
Ciancio Rossetto, P. (1982). ‘Due epigrafi prefettizie dal Circo Massimo.’ Atti del Colloquio internazionale AIEGL su epigrafia e ordine senatorio, 14–20 maggio 1981. vol. 1. Rome: 571–573.
Dearn, A. (2003). ‘The Coinage of Vetranio: Imperial Representation and the Memory of Constantine the Great.’ Numismatic Chronicle 163: 169–191.
Donati, A. (1974). ‘I miliari delle regioni IV et V dell’Italia.’ Epigraphica 36: 155–222.
Drake, H. A. (2012). ‘“But I digress …”: Rhetoric and Propaganda in Julian’s Second Oration to Constantius.’ In Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate, eds. N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher. Swansea: 35–46.
Drinkwater, J. F. (2000). ‘The Revolt and Ethnic Origin of the Usurper Magnentius (350–353), and the Rebellion of Vetranio (350).’ Chiron 30: 131–159.
Fagan, G. G. (2002). Bathing in Public in the Roman World. Michigan.
Flower, H. I. (1998). ‘Rethinking “Damnatio Memoriae”: The case of Cn. Calpurnius Piso Pater in AD 20.’ Classical Antiquity 17.2: 155–187.
———. (2006). The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture. Chapel Hill, NC
———. (2016). Imperial Invectives against Constantius II: Athanasius of Alexandria, History of the Arians, Hilary of Poitiers, Against Constantius, and Lucifer of Cagliari, The necessity of dying for the Son of God. Liverpool.
Fortini, P. (1997). ‘Flavius Magnus Magnentius in una iscrizione da Monte Romano (Ager Tarquiniensis). Indagine preliminare.’ In Etrusca et Italica: Scritti in ricordo di Massimo Pallottino. Pisa: 315–321.
Gallia, A. (2012). Remembering the Roman Republic: Culture, Politics and History Under the Principate. Cambridge.
Gordon, A. E. (1983). Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy. Berkeley.
Harries, J. (2012). Imperial Rome AD 284 to 363: the New Empire. Edinburgh.
Heather, P., and Moncur, D. (2001). Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century: Select Orations of Themistius. Liverpool.
Humphrey, J. H. (1986). Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing. Berkeley.
Humphries, M. (2002). ‘The Lexicon of Abuse: Drunkenness and Political Illegitimacy in the Late Roman World.’ In Humour, History and Politics in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, eds. G. Halsall. Cambridge: 75–88.
Humphries, M. (2003). ‘Roman Senators and Absent Emperors in Late Antiquity.’ Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia 17.3: 27–46.
———. (2007). ‘From Emperor to Pope? Ceremonial, Space and Authority at Rome from Constantine to Gregory the Great.’ In Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300–900, eds. K. Cooper and J. Hillner. Cambridge: 21–58.
———. (2015). ‘Emperors, Usurpers, and the City of Rome: Performing Power from Diocletian to Theodosius.’ In Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, ed. J. Wienand. Oxford: 151–168.
Kelly, G. (2008). Ammianus Marcellinus: the Allusive Historian. Cambridge.
Kent, J. P. C. (1981). The Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. VIII, The Family of Constantine I. London.
Laurence, R. (2004). ‘Milestones, Communications, and Political Stability.’ In Travel, Communication and Geography in Late Antiquity, eds. L. Ellis and F. Kidner. Farnham: 41–58.
Lee, A. D. (2015). ‘Emperors and Generals in the Fourth Century.’ In Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, ed. J. Wienand. Oxford: 100–118.
Lenski, N. (2016). Constantine and the Cities: Imperial Authority and Civic Politics. Philadelphia.
Leone, A. (2013). The End of the Pagan City: Religion, Economy, and Urbanism in Late Antique North Africa. Oxford.
Leppin, H. (2015). ‘Coping with the Tyrant’s Faction.’ In Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, ed. J. Wienand. Oxford: 198–214.
Lepelley, C. (1979). Les Cités de l’Afrique romaine au Bas-Empire, Vol. 1. Paris.
———. (1981). Les Cités de l’Afrique romaine au Bas-Empire, vol 2. Paris.
Machado, C. (2006). ‘Building the Past: Monuments and Memory in the Forum Romanum.’ In Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity, eds. W. Bowden, A. Gutteridge, and C. Machado. Leiden: 157–191.
Matthews, P. J. (1992). ‘The Poetess Proba and Fourth-Century Rome: Questions of Interpretation.’ In Institutions, société et vie politique dans l’empire Romain au IVe Ap. J.C., ed. M. Christol. Paris: 277–304.
Merlin, A. (1944). Inscriptiones Latines de la Tunisie. Paris.
Miškec, A. (2011). ‘The Double Solidus of Magnentius.’ Proceedings of the XIVth International Numismatic Congress, Glasgow 2009 ed. N. Holmes. Glasgow: 822–826.
Nixon, C. E. V., and Saylor Rodgers, B. (1994). In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini. Introduction, Translation, and Historical Commentary with the Latin Text of R. A. B. Mynors. Berkeley.
Omissi, A. (2018). Emperors and Usurpers in the Later Roman Empire. Civil War, Panegyric, and the Construction of Legitimacy. Oxford.
Pflaum, H. G. (2003). Inscriptions Latines de l’Algérie. 2. Inscriptions de la confédération cirtéenne, de Cuicul et de la tribu des Suburbures. Vol 3. Paris..
Poinssot, M. L. (1933). ‘Une inscription de Musti, contemporaine de Magnence.’ Competes rendue de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres 77.1: 21–24.
Ridley, R. T. (1982). Zosimus: New History. Sydney.
Salzman, M. R. (1990). On Roman Time: the Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. Berkeley.
Shelton, K. (1982). ‘The Usurpers’ Coins: The Case of Magnentius.’ Byzantinische Forschungen 8: 211–235.
Strzygowski, J. (1888). Die Calenderbilder. Des Chronographen Vom Jahre 354. Berlin.
Sutherland, C. H. V. (1967). The Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. VII: Constantine and Licinius. London.
Szidat, J. (2015). ‘Gaul and the Roman Emperors of the Fourth Century.’ In Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, ed. J. Wienand. Oxford: 119–134.
Tougher, S. (2012). ‘Reading between the Lines: Julian’s First Panegyric on Constantius II.’ In Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate, eds. N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher. Cardiff: 35–46.
Van Dam, R. (2011). Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge. Cambridge.
Vanderspoel, J. (2012). ‘A Tale of Two Cities: Themistius on Rome and Constantinople.’ In Two Romes. Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, eds. L. Grig and G. Kelly. Oxford: 223–240.
Woudhuysen, G. (2018). ‘Uncovering Constans’ Image.’ In Imagining Emperors in the Later Roman Empire, eds. D. P. W. Burgersdijk and A. J. Ross. Leiden: 158–182.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Usherwood, R. (2022). Magnentius. In: Political Memory and the Constantinian Dynasty. New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87930-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87930-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87929-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87930-3
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)