Ancients.info - The Online Resource for Ancient Coins & Antiquities  

Go Back   Ancients.info - The Online Resource for Ancient Coins & Antiquities > Miscellaneous > Archeology
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Sidebar Off

Archeology All aspects of archeology, including moral, ethical, and legal considerations.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Dec 9, 2007, 02:16 PM   #16
GMoneti
Registered User
 
GMoneti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 206
   View My Photo Gallery
Here is the decree in higher resolution. It's still not entirely clear, but I am constrained by the forum file size limit.

Ben, I've e-mailed you a really high res scan that's about 6 MB, and Voz I can do the same for you if you give me an e-mail address. If any of you guys have any luck in translating it, please post the results. I wish I could've snapped a photo of the translation in the museum.

Jeff, I don't know for sure how it was produced, but I'd imagine that the letters were hand-carved, rather than done by other methods. If you look closely the letters are all different, so no letter type of any sort. The whole text being stamped or a mold used to create it doesn't seem worthwhile doing, because I don't think this was mass-produced. It's the only one found in Bulgaria (officially at least). In that case it would be much easier to have a worker carve it into the metal, rather than use some complicated technique. Also, if they used any type to strike over the plate, they would have needed to work really fast before it cooled off.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg decree_text.jpg (74.9 KB, 182 views)
__________________
Georgi
GMoneti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2007, 07:19 AM   #17
vozmozhno
Registered User
 
vozmozhno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 375
   View My Photo Gallery
OK, here's what I've found out so far. The plaque is a second copy of an official letter sent out from Licinius dealing with military taxes, the other being known as the "Brigetio Table," dated to 311, found in Brigetio (modern Komárom - a city in Hungary on the bank of the Danube across from Slovakia). The text is nearly identical but not exactly. Here is the relevant portion (the portion appearing on "our" plaque) of the Brigetio Table for comparison:

....CVM IN OMNIBVS PRO DEVOTIONE AC LABORIBVS SVIS MILITVM NOSTRORVM COMMODIS ADQVE VTILITATIBVS SEMPER CONSVLTVM ESSE CVPIAMVS IN HOC ETIAM DISPOSITIONVM NOSTRARVM PROVISIONE EIVSDEM MILITIBVS NOSTRIS CONSVLENDVM ESSE CREDIDIMVS DALMATI CARISSIME VNDE INTVENTES LABORES EORVNDEM MILITVM NOSTRVM QVOS PRO REI PVB STATV ET COMMODIS ADSIDVIS DISCVRSIBVS SVSTINENT PROVIDENDVM AC DISPONENDVM ESSE CREDIDIMVS VT ET MILITIAE SVAE TEMPORE IVCVNDIS LABORVM SVORVM FRVCTIBVS EX NOSTRA PROVISIONE SE PERFRVI GAVDEANT ET POS MILITIAM QVIAETO OTIO ET CONGRVA SECVRITATES POTIANTVR ITAQVE DEVOTIONI TVAE SIGNIFICANDVM ESSE CREDIDIMVS VT IDEM MILITES NOSTRI MILITIAE QVIDEM SVAE TEMPORE QVINQVEM CAPITA IVXTA STATVTVM NOSTRVM EX CENSV ADQVE A PRESTATIONIBVS SOLLEMNIBVS ANNONARIAE PENSITATIONIS EXCVSENT EADEMQVE IMMVNIA HABEANT ADQVE CVM COMPLETIS STIPENDIIS LEGITIMIS HONESTAM MISSIONEM IDEM FVERINT CONSECVTI SED ET HII QV LICET POSD VIGINTI STIPENDIA ADEQVE HONESTAM MISSIONEM F ADEPTI FVERINT AB ANNONARIO TITVLO DVO KAPITA EXCVSENT ID EST TAM SVVM QVAM ETIAM VXORIS SVAE SI QVIS FORTE EX PRELI VVLNERE CAVSARIVS FVERIT EFFECTVS ETIAM SI INTRA VIGINTI STIPENDIA EX EA CAVSA RERVM SVARVM VACATIONEM FVERIT CONSECVTVS AD BENEFICIVM EIVSDEM INDVLGENTIAE NOSTRAE PERTNIAT ITA VT SVVM ET VXSORIS SVAE KAPVT EXCVSET ADQVE VT OMNI MODO TAM QVIETIS SVAE SECVRITATI QVAM ETIAM COMMODIS CONSVLTVM PROVISIONIS NOSTRAE BENEFICIO IDEM MILITES GRATVLENTVR LICET EIVSMODI ANTEHAC CON CONSVETVDO FVERIT VT PLVRIMI HOMINES SIMVL HONESTAM MISSIONEM A DVCE PERCIPERENT PENES ACTARIVM MISSORIA PERMANENTE EXEMPLA SIBI SINGVLI QVIQVE EXCIPERENT TAMEN VOLVMVS VT CVM VEL HONESTAM VEL CASARIAM SICVTI SVPRA DICTVM EST MISSIONEM MILITES CONSECVNTVR SINGVLI QVIQVE SPECIALEM A DVCE IN PERSONAM SVAM ACCIPIANT MISSIONEM QVO PROBATIONE VERITATIS AC FIDEI APVT PERMANENTE SECVRITATE STABILI AT FIRMISSIMA PERFRVANTVR PERVIDET SANE DICATIO TVA EOS QVI DILICTI SVI GRATIA DIMITTVNTVR AD BENEFICIVM LEGIS EIVSDEM PERTINERE NON POSSE CVM VTRIVSQVE REI RATIONE HABERI OPORTEAT AC VITAE PROBABILIS INSTITVTA ADQVAE HONESTAM MISSIONEM SED ET MERIT[ ]ILITIAE PREMIA A NOBIS CONDIGNA PERCIPERE CONVEAT VT ET EIVSDEM INDVLGENTIAE NOSTRAE BENEFICIO PERPETVO IDEM MILITES PERPETVO PERFRVANTVR AC....

Besides a number of spelling inconsistencies between the above and what is inscribed on the plaque that Georgi posted, there is at least one major difference: near the beginning the Brigetio Table is addressed to "DALMATI" or Dalmatius, whereas this plaque is addressed to "TERTI" (start of line 5) which I take as the name Tertius. Dalmatius and Tertius were thus probably officials of some sort having jurisdiction over different geographic areas.

I will post more about this shortly...

Voz
vozmozhno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2007, 08:23 AM   #18
vozmozhno
Registered User
 
vozmozhno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 375
   View My Photo Gallery
I found a translation of the first 10 lines in Simon Corcoran's book The Empire of the Tetrarchs which is far better than my attempt:

"Most-esteemed Tertius, (Corcoran's translation begins here) Since in all things we desire always to take thought for the benefit and advantage of our soldiers because of their devotion and toils, in this matter also we have believed we should take thought for our same soldiers by the foresight of our measures, wherefore, looking upon the toils of our same soldiers, which they bear with continuous effort on behalf of the condition and benefit of the state, we have believed that it should be provided and ordained that by our foresight they should both rejoice in the enjoyment of the pleasing fruits of their toil during the time of their service and after it obtain a quiet retirement and fitting security."

This takes us from the start of the plaque through "potiantur" on line 10 and is basically the introduction. From here it actually gets into the specifics of arrangements involving the soldiers--I will cobble together a translation of this part as soon as I have time.

One interesting note: this was sent out only one month following the death of Galerius; Corcoran interprets it as Licinius asserting his authority and consolidating "his support as he took control over Galerius' European territories and prepared to confront Maximinus at the straits."

I created a pdf containing the relevant material from Corcoran's book as well as a couple of others for those who are interested:

www.tetrarchy.com/Brigetio.pdf

Voz

Last edited by vozmozhno : Dec 10, 2007 at 10:43 AM.
vozmozhno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2007, 12:14 PM   #19
Congius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 211
View My Photo Gallery
Good detective work Voz, in connecting this with the Brigetio table!

As far as I can see this copy doesn't mention Constantine (or Licinius) (or for that matter the location/date, but I'm not sure I would spot that not being able to read Latin).

Do you know where the connection with Constantine comes from? Does the Brigetio table include the date/location?

Ben
Congius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2007, 12:44 PM   #20
vozmozhno
Registered User
 
vozmozhno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 375
   View My Photo Gallery
Yes the Brigetio Table includes text before and after that which appears on this plaque. The text before is:

X IMP CAES FLA VAL CONSTANTINVS P F IN AVG P M TRI P VII IMP VI COS P P PCOSS ET IMP CAES VAL [[LICI LICINIVS]] P F IN AVG P M TRI P IIII IMP III COS P P PCOSS EXEMPL SACRA LITTERARVM HAVE DALMATI CARISSIME NOBIS...

Corcoran says this was not part of the original inscription but was added later. Also, the double brackets around LICI LICINIVS signify that these words were later obliterated.

Then there is the text which comes after that preserved on "our" plaque which I assume WAS part of the original inscription (you can see that the plaque is cut off on the bottom):

...SEMPITERNA DISPOSITIONIS NOSTRAE PROVISIO OBTINEAT FIRMITATEM VOLVMVS TENOREM HVIVS INDVLGENTIAE NOSTRAE DESCRIBTVM PER SINGVLA QVEQVE CASTRA APVT SIGNA IN TABVLA AEREA CONSECRARI QVO TA[ ] LEGIONARII MILITES QVAM ETIAM EQVITES IN VEXILLATIONIBVS CONSTITVTI INLYRICIANI SICVTI SIMILIS LABORIS MILITIAE SVAE SVSTINENT ITA ETIAM PROVISIONIS NOSTRAE SIMILIBVS COMMODIS PERFRVANTVR ET MANV DIVINA VALE DALMATI CARISSIME NOBIS DIVO MAXIMIANO VIII [[ET D N MAXIMINO AVG ITERVM]] COSSS IIII IDVS IVNIAS SERDICA

The last bit "IIII IDVS IVNIAS SERDICA" is the date: June 10, 311 and place: Serdica. Notice again the double brackets where Maximinus' name has been obliterated. Fascinating stuff...

Voz
vozmozhno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2007, 05:38 PM   #21
Congius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 211
View My Photo Gallery
Voz,
Would you mind to check that the IMP date given for Licinius at the beginning of the Brigetio Table - is it really IMP III rather than IMP IIII?

There's some inconsistencies with the dates from the titlature given for Constantine & Licinius:

1) IMP VI COS for Constantine gives Jan 312 - Jul 312 (based from IMP I in Jul 306, and COS II in 312)

2) IMP III COS for Licinius seems to be a contradiction - IMP III gives Nov 310 - Nov 311 (based from IMP I in Nov 308 - Carnuntum), but COS would have to be COS II in 312. If IMP IIII was intended then we'd have Nov 311-Nov 312.

So, at least one, and maybe both, of these titles point to (IIII IDVS IVNIAS) 312 rather than 311 as the date, despite the DIVO MAXIMIANO [COS] VIII indicating 311. Does Corcoran also (in addition to the Bulagarian museum) date it to 311?

I guess Constantine could have ratified the decree in 312 after Licinius had originated it in 311, but then what's Licinius doing calling himself COS in 311? For that matter why is Constantine putting his name to a decree issued in Serdica (Licinius's territory) in 311/312?

Another question - what's the "X" preceding Constantine's titlature meant to mean?

It's certainly a fascinating record... they say winners write history, but I guess those deleted names show it's not so easy to rewrite the history books when they are written in bronze!

Ben

Last edited by Congius : Dec 10, 2007 at 09:27 PM.
Congius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2007, 09:17 PM   #22
vozmozhno
Registered User
 
vozmozhno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 375
   View My Photo Gallery
Ben,

You've hit upon my area of weakness--I really need to sit down and figure out the whole COS/IMP dating system one of these days. I double-checked the inscription and believe I got it posted correctly, but here is a link so you can check it out for yourself:

Brigetio Table

Corcoran does give the date as June 10, 311. He says in a footnote that the date was stated incorrectly as June 9, 311 when the Brigetio Table was first published and that it was corrected in 1961.

As far as the X before Constantine--I'm clueless. However, the Brigetio Table also includes an S and an F all by their lonesome in the middle part of the text, both of which do not appear on the plaque that Georgi posted, and neither of which seem to mean anything (at least that I can figure out).

Voz
vozmozhno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2007, 12:52 PM   #23
cerwin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pleven
Posts: 15
   View My Photo Gallery
Send a message via Skype™ to cerwin
oh,come on....dont be so naive,and dont believe of everything you read.things are very exaggeration.long time ago i decide to open a topic called "archeogy news from bulgaria" and meet you with greatest things found in our lands,but i dont know why i didnt.may be i will start.however....its true that a lot of auctions in europe are filled with roman.thacian byzantian finds (including very rare and expensive things) from bulgaria and balkanian but i think that everywhere with ancient history its just like here.
Gmoneti,you are bulgarian,i think that you have to support me.
on statistic evidences looters in bulgaria are more than 30 000 ( i think this is count of people that are ever seen or hear about metaldetector),but a real treasure hunters a much less.im from central dunavian plain ( north bulgaria) - borderline of roman empire for a long time before the war of trajan with decibal and his invasion in dacian lands.
however ... i cant describe you how many things are found in this area ( im just not so clever to counting so much) but they have nothing together with finds on this report.

excuse me for my bad english
best regards!
cerwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2007, 01:52 PM   #24
curtislclay
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 316
   View My Photo Gallery
T.D. Barnes, New Empire, p. 25, following Dessau, explains that in this era both TR P and IMP were renewed annually on 10 Dec., the IMP number however always being one behind the TR P number, I suppose because the first IMP was the one at the beginning of the name in IMP CAES, so an emperor was IMP CAES...TR P upon accession, then became IMP CAES...TR P II IMP on the next 10 Dec., and so on.

So Constantine TR P VII IMP VI and Licinius TR P IIII IMP III equals 10 Dec. 310-9 Dec. 311.

That agrees with the consuls named, Divus Galerius VIII and Daia II, 311 AD, but after
Galerius' death and consecration in May 311.

Constantine and Licinius were consuls together in 309 according to Barnes, so COS for both of them in 311 is also correct.
curtislclay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2007, 03:20 PM   #25
Congius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 211
View My Photo Gallery
Curtis,
Thanks for bringing this thread back alive! I wasn't aware that tribunician powers were awarded on a fixed date (Dec 10), or that imperial salutations effectively included the IMP at the start of the title!

On re-reading a Bruun paper**, I see that he [implicitly] disagrees with Barnes/Dessau on the date for renewal of imperal powers, which he believes to have occured on the anniversay of the emperors dies imperii rather than also occuring on Dec 10.

Bruun also cites LaFaurie as having established in "Chronologie Constantienne" that Licinius's dies imperiii must have fallen in the period 26-31 Dec 308 despite his having been appointed augustus in November, and also agrees with LaFaurie (has to be so, given inscriptions cited) that Constantine's first renewal of imperial powers was between Dec 10-31 307 and that this was used (up to 315) as the date for subsequent renewals (apparently a result of the strange circumstance of his coming to power and acclamation by Maximianus).

Conveniently we therefore have the tribunician and imperial powers for both Licinius and Constantine falling in December:

For Licinius:

Dec 308 TR P
Dec 309 TR P II IMP
Dec 310 TR P III IMP II
Dec 311 TR P IIII IMP III

For Constantine:

Jul 306 TR P
Dec 306 TR P II IMP
Dec 307 TR P III IMP II
Dec 308 TR P IIII IMP III
Dec 309 TR P V IMP IIII
Dec 310 TR P VI IMP V
Dec 311 TR P VII IMP VI

Given that Divus Maximianus COS VIII points to 311, it seems that 311 is indeed the correct year for the Brigetio Table inscription, and that we can narrow it down to the very last few days of the year. In this case I would guess that COS for both Constantine and Licinius may refer to COS DESIG for 312.

Ben

** "Constantine's Dies Imperii and Quinquennalia in the light of the early Solidi of Trier."

Last edited by Congius : Dec 29, 2007 at 05:37 PM.
Congius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2007, 05:11 PM   #26
vozmozhno
Registered User
 
vozmozhno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 375
   View My Photo Gallery
Quote:
On re-reading a Bruun paper**, I see that he [implicitly] disagrees with Barnes/Dessau on the date for renewal of imperal powers, which he believes to have occured on the anniversay of the emperors dies imperii rather than also occuring on Dec 10.
This subject is still foggy in my mind, but I think Barnes says the same thing. The tribunician power is renewed each Dec. 10th, whereas the title Imperator is renewed annually on the anniversary of his dies imperii. So the effect generally is that the trib. pot. number ends up being one more than the imp. number. He says this holds true for those who became Augusti without first holding the rank of Caesar. For those who were Caesars for a period of time before becoming Augusti, the titulature is apparently inconsistent.

Voz
vozmozhno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2007, 07:07 AM   #27
vozmozhno
Registered User
 
vozmozhno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 375
   View My Photo Gallery
After a night spent wrestling with the published material, I have a few comments to throw out with regard to the trib. pot. imp. dates:

1) Barnes has 2 tables in the back of his book which lay out the dies imperii and first renewel of tribunicia potestas for each emperor. Almost all irregularities are solved by assuming that Maximian, Galerius and Constantine each had both of their titles augmented (an extra one added) once--Maximian in 293 when Constantius was made Caesar, Galerius in 305 when he was promoted from Caesar to Augustus, and Constantine in 307 when he was promoted from Caesar to Augustus. This basically irons out most of the kinks with the notable exception of Constantine for whom he lists 4 possible computations and the sources of evidence for each.

2) C.E.V. Nixon, in The Panegyrici Latini, discusses Constantine's dies imperii in depth on pp. 179-185. He rejects one of the 4 possible computations which Barnes outlines since it is only supported by 2 documents which he considers anomalous. He also rejects the Dec. 25 date, and March 31 as well, discussing the reasons at length (leaning heavily on the numismatic evidence interestingly enough). He comes down rather in favor (as Barnes also seems to do) of Constantine consistently reckoning his dies imperii on July 25 and celebrating his renewal of salutation as Imperator on that date.

3) Coming full circle, one of the documents consistently cited in support of this reckoning (July 25) is the Brigetio Table (Bruun cites it in footnote 2 of his article on the dies imperii and quinquennalia as "Edict of Serdica, 9 June 311 [note the incorrect date--should be the 10th], AE 1937, no. 323." It's also cited by Barnes and Corcoran as FIRA 2 1.93.

4) I have run into one seeming inconsistency in Barnes' calculation with regard to Galerius' titulature: He cites an inscription dated to April of 311 which styles Galerius trib. pot xx imp. xix, and claims that an augment of each of his titles in 305 gives the correct time period. However if you actually chart it out, he is off by one month since Galerius' dies imperii was March 1st, that would make April of 311 one month into trib. pot. xx imp. xx. He cites two articles on this point, one in French (Seston 1937) and the other is his own article from 1976 in which he makes the same claim and calculation. He's too sharp to make such a blatant mistake, so unless I've miscalculated I can only see two possible solutions. One, he considers the giving or taking of a month to be within the margin of error for such titulature, or, two, he believes Galerius switched his dies imperii to May 1st after he was elevated to Augustus on that date (when he also received the augment for each title. While this would seem logical, it goes against the pattern which he outlines for Maximian and Constantine, both of whom retained their original dies imperii following their augment. I almost get the sense that Barnes deliberately worded his argument so as to avoid addressing the issue--it's too obvious to have been accidentally overlooked. Maybe someone else can tell me otherwise.

Voz

Last edited by vozmozhno : Dec 30, 2007 at 07:25 AM.
vozmozhno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2007, 09:12 AM   #28
Congius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 211
View My Photo Gallery
Voz,
An extra twist to Constantine's titlature is that according to Bruun **, Constantine changed his dies imperii after his Decennalia in 315. Prior to that (Bruun asserts) he'd used the Dec 10-31 date (based on his acclamation as augustus by Maximianus), but after his Decennalia he switched to use the anniversary of his dies caesaris (Jul 306) as his dies imperii.

I think I made a mistake in the table I gave for Constantine, since he would not have been granted imperial powers in Dec 306, but that seems to make the Brigetio "TR P VII IMP VI" impossible, so there must be some other error there. Bruun does cite, and not appear to reject, the Brigetio inscription, so I'll have to re-read more carefully to see exactly what he's claiming.

It seems that which ever way you reckon things, it may be necessary to assume that at least some inscription(s) are incorrect. In the first Bruun paper I cited he uses the inscriptions "TR P IX IMP VII COS III" and "TR P IX CONSVL [sic] VIII COS III DES IIII" (CIL VII 18905 & 10064 respectively, with the "CONSVL" of the latter assumed as an error meant as "IMP") to support the original Dec 10-31 dies imperii, but then in the paper below he appears to be saying that the first of these is inconsistent with all of the alternatives allowed by the remainder of the evidence (while still accepting the Dec 10-31 date based on the remainder of LaFaurie's argument).

Reading Bruun's papers is mind numbing. He may have known a lot about Constantinian numismatics, but his grasp for clear prose and linear argument isn't so hot, and at least one of his papers (re: control of Heraclea prior to Galerius's death) appears to be dead wrong which gives one pause.

It'd be nice to find or derive a definitive list of Constantine's TR P and IMP dates together with a list of the evidence that supports them or needs to be assumed erronious!

Ben

** "Constantine's change of dies imperii", from "Studies in Constantinian Numismatics".

Last edited by Congius : Dec 30, 2007 at 09:19 AM.
Congius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2007, 04:56 PM   #29
vozmozhno
Registered User
 
vozmozhno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 375
   View My Photo Gallery
I echo your frustration with Bruun's "prose," some of his arguments are very hard to follow. According to Barnes, other than Constantius, the emperors who had first held the title Caesar counted their dies imperii from the day they became Caesar and not the day they were promoted to Augustus. Of course they would not have been titled Imperator in any inscriptions at the time, but when they became Augusti, they figured their titulature as if they had been Augusti from the time they became Caesars. This along with the augment of one additional renewal of each title for Maximian, Galerius and Constantine solves most of the problems.

In his second of two tables relating to this subject, Barnes outlines 4 possible computations of Constantine's trib. pot imp titulature:

1) actual (By labeling it thus, I assume Barnes believes this to be that which Constantine himself followed). This is the reckoning outlined above which would give the following:

trib. pot. imp. Jul. 25, 306
trib. pot. ii imp. Dec. 10, 306
trib. pot. ii imp. ii Jul. 25, 307
c. Sept. 307 he is promoted to Augustus and each title recieves one additional renewal:
trib. pot. iii imp. iii c. Sept. 307
trib. pot. iv imp. iii Dec. 10, 307
trib. pot. iv imp. iv July 25, 308
trib. pot. v imp. iv Dec. 10, 308
trib. pot. v imp. v July 25, 309
trib. pot. vi imp. v Dec. 10, 309
trib. pot. vi imp. vi July 25, 310
trib. pot. vii imp. vi Dec. 10, 310
trib. pot. vii imp. vii July 25, 311
and so on...

According to Barnes, the titulature of Diocletian, Severus, Maximinus and Licinius is without irregularity. Thus for Licinius we have the following:

trib. pot. imp. Nov. 8, 308
trib. pot. ii imp. Dec. 10, 308
trib. pot. ii imp. ii Nov. 8, 309
trib. pot. iii imp. ii Dec. 10, 309
trib. pot. iii imp. iii Nov. 8, 310
trib. pot. iv imp. iii Dec. 10, 310
trib. pot. iv imp. iv Nov. 8, 311
trib. pot. v imp. iv Dec. 10, 311

Thus, the Brigetio table lists Constantine as trib. pot. vii imp vi (Dec. 10, 310-July 24, 311) and Licinius as trib. pot. iv imp. iii (Dec. 10, 310-Nov. 7, 311) giving us the date June 10, 311.

At the beginning of Bruun's article he cites the table as one of the reasons that March 31 was suggested as a dies imperii for Constantine. I believe this is because of the fact that there is a difference of 1 between the number of trib. pot. (7) and the number of imp. (6). If Constantine had renewed his imperatorial salutation (as they refer to it) on Dec. 10 (the same day the tribunician power was renewed) then the number would always be the same for both of them. Even if the date was later in Dec. such as the 25th, that would only leave a 2 week window out of the entire year within which inscriptions could record an unequal number of trib. pot.s and imp.s (bad english).

I haven't had the time to dissect Bruun's theory in depth (perhaps this evening) but from a quick perusal he seems to rule out the March 31st date of Seston on the basis of numismatic evidence. However, a Dec. date would be incompatible with the Brigetio table which dates prior to his Decennalia in 315.

I should note that Barnes cites all of Bruun's relevant material on the subject in his bibliography but doesn't seem to comment on it directly. Nixon discusses the matter in depth and comes to the following conclusion:

"I remain skeptical. The epigraphical difficulties have perhaps been exaggerated: political considerations have certainly been largely overlooked. The distinction between a "dies Augusti" and a "dies Caesaris" is unknown to our sources. There is no clear evidence for the celebration of Constantine's "dies Augusti" outside this speech [panegyric of Maximian and Constantine]. The speech itself was prompted by an actual promotion and an alliance that did not last three years and ended in betrayal and the violent death of one of the partners. No attempt to identify this occasion in the fasti has been successful. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that Constantine always regarded his initial proclamation on 25 July 306 as his dies imperii, and regularly celebrated it as such."

The other possible computations of Constantine's tib. pot. imp. are briefly:

2) without any additional renewals upon his promotion to Augustus (Barnes cites 3 inscriptions which support this reckoning).

3) this one he simply labels "Galerius" and I can only assume that it is the reckoning found in documents issued by Galerius. The main difference being that his dies imperii is reckoned in Sept. (Barnes cites 1 inscription in support)

4) In this reckoning, Constantine's imp. status is counted as beginning at his promotion to Augustus rather than Caesar. (CIL VII 18905 and one other inscription seem to give this reckoning. Nixon rejects this as a possibility).

Wow, did I write all that? Time for a sandwich.

Voz

Last edited by vozmozhno : Dec 30, 2007 at 05:02 PM.
vozmozhno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2008, 06:53 AM   #30
Congius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 211
View My Photo Gallery
I've been re-reading Bruun & Nixon (Pang. Lat.). Nixon's claim of a consistent July dies imperii only being inconsistent with two North African inscriptions from the same period (quite likely based on same source) seems quite reasonable - maybe more so than Bruun's rather belabored explanation. It's too bad that Nixon doesn't explicitly state the sequence of TR P and IMP dates he's claiming though... as far as I can tell it's the same as that Barnes "actual" table but without the addition increments on his elevation to augustus (I say this because Barnes titles are inconsistent with at least one inscription that Nixon - assuming he was aware of it, implicity are compatible with).

As far as the Brigetio table, I wonder if the correct titlature for Constantine and Licinius even need to date the same as the main inscription, seeing as you said it's believed to have been a later addition? The early June 311 date - explicit enough - comes immediately after Galerius's death in May, at a time when Licinius was facing off against Maximinus in the middle of the Bosphorus and consolidating his post-Galerius position. It's interesting to note that Maximinus (AVG ITERVM) is named on the inscription as well as Divus Galerius. It seems as if the decree was an immediate move by Licinius to secure the army's support after Galerius's death (whether done before or after meeting with Maximinus), and that maybe the later inscription naming both Constantine and Licinius came a bit later, possibly in 312. Bruun's titlature (not that I favor it) would give a Dec 311 date at earliest for Constantine, as I think (got to check) would Nixon's. Barnes "actual" table giving a latest date of Jul 25 for Constantine does seem surprisingly early in the circumstances, and at that date might be expected part of the original inscription rather than a later addition/endoresement.

Definitley got to look more into this - quite interesting.

Ben

P.S. Did you check out Bruun's argument - it seems a bit of a house of cards. At one point he's assuming that nine parallel reverse types must mean nine obverse dies (contrary to the known practice, sometimes at least, of using dual reverse die types against the same obverse die), then combines this with an assumed practice of die hubbing to argue that bust differences must be accountable by seperated bouts of production, and uses this as a (wobbly) base for further layers of argument. The whole argument being an attempt to find some numismatic evidence to confirm the original Dec dies imperii he subscribes to per LaFaurie, which would appear to disappear given a single erronius inscription (as well as being somewhat suspect in dating most inscriptions to Dec, as you point out!).

Last edited by Congius : Jan 2, 2008 at 07:02 AM.
Congius is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2002-2006, VHobbies.com, LLC. All rights reserved.