Roman diocese
In the
The term diocese comes from the
) meaning "administration", "management", "assize district", or "group of provinces".Historical development
Tetrarchy (286-305)
Two major reforms to the administrative divisions of the empire were undertaken during the Tetrarchy.[1]
The first of these was the multiplication of the number of
In order to compensate for the weakening of the provinces and to maintain the link between the Imperial centre and the individual provinces, the dioceses were created as a new territorial subdivision above the level of the province.
Many modern scholars date the introduction of the dioceses to AD 296–297.[10][11] A passage of Lactantius, who was hostile to Diocletian because of his persecution of the Christians, seems to indicate the existence of vicarii praefectorum in the time of Diocletian:
And so that everything would be filled with terror, the provinces were also sliced to bits; many governors and more offices brooded over individual regions and almost every city, as well as many rationales, magistri, and vicarii praefectorum, all of whose civil acts were exceedingly rare, but whose condemnations and proscriptions were common, whose exactions of innumerable taxes were not so much frequent as constant, and the damage from these taxes was unbearable.
— Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 7.4
Thus Lactantius refers to the vicarii praefectorum as being active already in Diocletian's time. Other sources from Diocletian's reign mention one Aurelius Agricolanus who was an agens vices praefectorum praetorio active in
Constantinian reforms (326-337)
From 310,
Regionalisation of the Praetorian Prefectures
The principal territorial reform undertaken by Constantine, as part of a process of trial-and-error,[14] was the 'regionalisation' of the Praetorian prefecture. Hitherto, one or two Praetorian prefects had served as chief minister for the whole empire, with military, judicial, and fiscal responsibilities.[14][15]
The political centralisation under Constantine, which culminated in the reunification of the whole empire under his rule, resulted in an "administrative decentralisation."[14] A single emperor could not control everything, so between 326 and 337, Constantine progressively transformed the 'ministerial' Praetorian Prefect into a 'regional' Prefect, in charge of a specific territory which contained several dioceses and was called a 'Praetorian Prefecture' (praefectura praetorio).[14]
These Praetorian Prefects had authority over the Vicars and Provincial Governors.[16][17] Paul Petit argues that the dioceses "themselves prefigured to some degree" the regional praetorian prefectures.[8] Thus, the creation of the praetorian prefectures reduced the utility of the dioceses. The direct link between the prefects and the governors bypassed the Vicars and caused their power to decline; they increasingly became agents carrying out the will of the Praetorian Prefects. However, despite their decreased importance, the vicars played an important role in the court hierarchy - Constantine raised them to the rank of clarissimi (between the consulares and the proconsulares).[18]
Creation of the comites
The other reason for the weakening of the vicars was the regular dispatch of comites, who outranked the vicars and probably had the role of inspecting their conduct.[18]
Territorial adjustments
It was probably
Under Emperor Valens (364-378), the Diocese of Egypt was split out of the Diocese of the East.[6] The Notitia Dignitatum indicates that at some point, the Diocese of Gaul was suppressed and incorporated into the diocese of the Septem Provinciae.
According to the Notitia Dignitatum, the dioceses of Dacia and Illyricum did not have vicars, but were governed by the Praetorian Prefect of Illyricum directly. Before its suppression, the Diocese of Gaul also seems to have been directly administered by the Praetorian Prefect of Gaul.[7] In fact, according to Jones, the diocese in which each Praetorian Prefect was based was generally under their direct control, except for the Diocese of Thrace, which was administered by a vicarius Thraciarum even though the Praetorian Prefect of the East had his seat in the diocese.[6] The title of vicar was used in all provinces except for the Diocese of the East, which was governed by a comes Orientis and Egypt, which continued to be governed by a Prefect.
Subsequent evolution
The successors of
Fall of the Western Roman empire
Around the end of the 5th century, the majority of the dioceses of the
Justinian's reforms
In 535–536,
Some of Justinian's decisions were subsequently revisited. In fact, thirteen years after the reforms of 535, in 548, Justinian decided to re-establish the diocese of Pontus due to serious internal problems. The vicar of Pontus was also given military powers, in order to effectively oppose the brigands that infested the region.[24] In the same period, five provinces of the former diocese of Asia which had become infested with brigands (Lycaonia, Pisidia, Lydia, and the two Phrygiae), were placed under the jurisdiction of a biocolytes (preventor of violence), in order to maintain order in the region.[28] The jurisdiction of this official was reduced to just Lycaonia and Lydia in 553, since the other three provinces had been pacified.[28] Novel 157 of AD 542, concerning Osroene and Mesopotamia is addressed to the Comes Orientis, suggesting that the northern part of the former diocese of the East remained under the authority of the Comes Orientis in this period.[28] Furthermore, it seems from the fact that a Vicar of Thrace is again attested in 576, it also seems that the diocese of Thrace was revived at some point - perhaps even under Justinian.[28]
When Africa and Italia were reconquered, Justinian established Praetorian prefecture of Africa, while the Praetorian Prefecture of Italia returned to Imperial hands after the Gothic War. The whole territory of the Empire in Africa, which had been the Diocese of Africa in the 4th and 5th centuries, was thus promoted to the rank of Prefecture. It was not divided into dioceses. It is unlikely that the Praetorian Prefecture of Italia was subdivided into two vicariates again in the Byzantine period.[20] The authority of the two Italian vicars was definitely much reduced compared to the 5th century.[20]
The successors of Justinian continued his policy of concentrating civilian and military power in the hands of a single individual. Maurice (582-602) transformed the old Prefectures of Italia and Africa into Exarchates governed by an Exarch, who held both civilian and military authority. The vicars and other civilian officials seem to have lost most of their importance to the exarchs and their subordinates, but did not disappear until the middle of the 7th century AD. After 557, there is no record of vicarii in Italia, but two agentes vices of the Praetorian Prefect of Italia with their seats in Genova and Rome are mentioned in Pope Gregory I's letters.[20][a] These Italian agentes vices are no longer attested after the first half of the seventh century.[29]
Disappearance
In the seventh century, as a result of the establishment of the first themes (military districts governed by a strategos with military and civilian authority) and the invasions of the Arabs and Slavs, the Praetorian Prefectures of the East and of Illyricum disappeared. The last certain attestation of a Praetorian Prefect of the East is in 629, while Illyricum survived to the end of the 7th century, but without any effective power since the majority of the Balkans, aside from Thessaloniki, had fallen under the Slavs. Thus the Prefect of Illyricum was renamed the Praetorian Prefect of Thessaloniki. In the same period, the dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia finally disappeared as a result of the loss of almost all their territory. However, the Taktikon Uspenskij which was written at the beginning of the 9th century, mentions a Praetorian Prefect of Constantinople and Proconsuls (anthypatoi) of the themes, which suggests that the Praetorian Prefecture of the East continued to exist even though it had lost most of its earlier powers and had only a few judicial functions.[30] If the dioceses lost their fiscal functions during the 6th and 7th centuries, it may be that they were replaced by new groupings of provinces under the judicial administration of a Proconsul (anthypatos).[31] The provinces continued to exist under the themes until the second half of the 9th century.[32]
Organisation
Vicars
The vicarius was a high official appointed by the Emperor and accountable only to him.[5][10] The position was held by equites who were given the rank of perfectissimus (before the egregii and after the eminentissimi).[33] Thus, in rank, the vicars were inferior to the governors of the senatorial provinces (the consulares), although they had to exercise political authority over them. René Rémond suggests that this paradox was resolved by promoting vicars whose dioceses contained provinces with senatorial governors to the rank of clarissimus, but there is no evidence for this.[34] Constantine the Great raised them to the senatorial rank of clarissimus in 324-325.[35]
Initially, the powers of the vicars were considerable: they controlled and monitored the governors (aside from the proconsuls who governed Asia and Africa), administered the collection of taxes, intervened in military affairs in order to fortify the borders, and judged appeals.[8] They were not under the control of the Praetorian Prefect, but only to the Emperor himself. Appeals of their legal decisions went straight to the emperor.[18] In as much as they were responsible for the integrity of the global diocesan budgets drawn up by the prefectures, they were in 328-329 AD given oversight powers and appeal authority over the Treasury and Crown Estate officials but could not meddle in their routine business. The offices of the three regional ministries were located in the same towns or cities: this facilitated the work of the diocesan staffs which was to audit and process the huge amounts of fiscal and judicial work from the provincial level before being sent to the prefectures. He was tasked with regulating and controlling governors; exacting compliance from any officials he had partial or whole authority over in cooperation with the regional officials of the respective jurisdictions; processing huge amounts of judicial and fiscal information before being sent up prefecture. The additional authority truly made vicars mini-prefects. The position went into decline from the first decades of the 5th century as the emperors switches back to the two tier prefect-governor arrangement rather than the 3 level with the diocese as regional level as fiscal officials for central headquarters became stationed in the provinces and the change over to the great bulk of tax collection in gold simplified the amount of paperwork and transport needs.[36]
The vicars had no real military role and had no troops under their command, which was a significant novelty compared to the Augustan provincial system. The intent was to separate military and civilian power and thus prevent rebellions, civil wars and make the military subject to civilian command.
See also
References
Notes
Citations
- ^ a b c d Rémond, p. 124
- ^ a b c Lo Cascio, p. 179
- ^ a b Petit, p. 26
- ^ Lo Cascio, p. 180
- ^ a b Piganiol, p. 353
- ^ a b c d e Jones, p. Vol. I, p. 373.
- ^ a b Jones, p. Vol. I, p. 374.
- ^ a b c Petit, p. 28
- ^ Jones, p. Vol. I, p. 375.
- ^ a b Petit, p. 27
- ^ a b Wiewiorowski, p. 53.
- ^ Zuckerman, Travaux et Memoires 14, Melanges Gilbert Dagron, 2002.
- ^ Wiewiorowski, p. 65.
- ^ a b c d Petit, p. 70
- ^ Piganiol, p. 356
- ^ Petit, p. 155
- ^ Rémond, p. 142
- ^ a b c Piganiol, p. 354
- ^ Jones, pp. 257–259.
- ^ a b c d Cosentino, p. 128.
- ^ Bury, pp. 339–342.
- ^ Bury, pp. Vol. II, pp. 339–340.
- ^ a b Jones, p. Vol. I, p. 280.
- ^ a b c Bury, p. Vol. I, p. 340.
- ^ Bury, p. Vol. II, p. 342.
- ^ Bury, p. Vol. II, p. 339.
- ^ Jones, p. Vol. I, p. 281.
- ^ a b c d Jones, p. Vol. I, p. 294.
- ^ Cosentino, p. 129.
- ^ Haldon & Brubaker, p. 672.
- ^ Haldon & Brubaker, pp. 674–675.
- ^ Ostrogorsky, p. 221.
- ^ See G. Bloc, L'Empire romain. Évolution et décadence, Flammarion, Paris, 1922, vol. II, chapter 2.
- ^ Rémond, p. 125
- ^ The Later Roman Empire, A. H. M. Jones 1964; The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome Geoffrey Rickman Clarendon Press, 1980 - Business & Economics - 290 pages
- ^ Franks, Byzantinische Zeitscrift, 1916 Band 109 Heft 2 989-994.
Sources
- ISBN 978-80-273-0318-2. first published in 1889 in two volumes:
- ——— (1889a). A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene, Volume One (PDF). OCLC 905670303. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 July 2007. and
- ——— (1889b). A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene, Volume Two (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 July 2007.
- ——— (1889a). A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene, Volume One (PDF).
- OCLC 492053048.
- Cosentino, Salvatore (2008). Storia dell'Italia bizantina, VI–XI secolo : da Giustiniano ai normanni [History of Byzantine Italy, 6th – 11th centuries: from Justinian to the Normans]. Bologna: Bononia University Press. OCLC 690608962.
- OCLC 892568486.
- OCLC 1130974042.
- ISBN 9780881410563.
- Ostrogorsky, George (1956). History of the Byzantine State. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- OCLC 39171497.
- ISBN 2130321259.
- Rémondon, Roger (1997) [Paris (1964)]. La Crise de l'Empire romain : de Marc Aurèle à Anastase [Crisis in the Roman Empire: from Marcus Aurelius to Anastasius]. Nouvelle Clio, 11 (in French) (3e éd. ed.). Paris: Presses universitaires de France. OCLC 38827662.
- OCLC 951378004.