Hope and trepidation. approaching an emperor conjured up conflicting feelings in petitioners. Because emperors were a highly anticipated source of justice, generosity, and assistance, they were expected to demonstrate their accessibility and civility. When Theodosius visited Rome, he had enjoyed bantering with the crowds. To reinforce this image of himself as an ordinary citizen, he had also “banished terror.” But despite their best intentions, emperors often projected an aura of menace and intimidation. Emperors were frightening figures, usually surrounded by high-ranking advisers and armed bodyguards and with no constitutional restrictions on their exercise of power. Even as one orator praised Theodosius for his affability at Rome, he also admitted that he was still terrified to speak in his presence. Another orator had calmed his nerves in front of Constantine by openly acknowledging his uneasiness. “It is no small task to ask the emperor of the entire world for a personal favor, ...to compose the words, to speak without fear, to stop at the right time, to await a response.”1
Theodosius at Rome: Claudian, De sexto consulatu Honorii 59—61. Pacatus, Pan-egyrici latini 2(i2).i. i, terror, 47.3, accessibility. No small task: Panegyrici latini
Petitioners and communities approached emperors and their courts either directly in person or through letters. In a direct meeting an envoy might address the emperor with a panegyric. However nervewracking for the panegyrist, the formal occasion at least imposed a framework of traditional protocol, since the orator generally followed the demands of the rhetorical genre and the emperor was expected to listen respectfully. Petitions presented to the court as letters were often just as formulaic, essentially miniature panegyrics that followed similar guidelines. These petitions combined praise for the emperor and his accomplishments with lists of grievances and requests for benefactions or honors. Petitions hence involved a certain amount of guesswork, as petitioners tried to imagine what an emperor might like to hear and to suggest remedies that they hoped he would adopt. Petitions were simultaneously deferential, trying to reflect the emperor’s image of himself, and didactic, trying to bend his response in a favorable manner.
The emperor Constantine acquired a reputation for reading, listening to, thinking about, and responding directly to embassies and petitions from provincials. His reign was especially rich in petitions, in particular with regard to Christianity. Many of these petitions arose from theological controversies involving the Donatists in North Africa and the supporters and opponents of the priest Arius in the East. At the council of Nicaea, in fact, in the interest of unanimity Constantine publicly burned the many petitions submitted by rival churchmen. Other petitions concerned nominally non-Christian topics, such as municipal affairs. Toward the end of his reign Constantine received a petition from central Italy. This petition had been sent by the cities of Umbria, a region north of Rome, or perhaps more specifically by Hispellum (now Spello), a leading city in the region which certainly stood to benefit the most from a favorable response. This petition requested autonomy for both Hispellum and Umbria from a neighboring region and its dominant city. Even as it presented specific requests, however, this petition
5(8).9.3, with Rees (2002) 9, for an evocation of “the imposing atmosphere surrounding such occasions.”
Also seemed to hint at some uncertainty about how to approach Constantine.2
One hesitation involved religion. Because Constantine was a Christian emperor who consistently publicized his patronage of ecclesiastical affairs, it is natural to assume that his preference for Christianity would somehow influence his responses to petitions. In their petition Hispellum and the other cities did define their autonomy in terms of religion. But significantly, their petition did not mention Christianity at all. These cities instead requested the institution of their own festival and the construction of their own temple in honor of Constantine’s dynasty. Equally significantly, in his reply Constantine did not mention Christianity either. He clearly considered other issues to be more important. The obsession of modern scholars with the Christianity of the first Christian emperor has obscured other important, perhaps even more consequential, transformations that he initiated or influenced. Dynastic succession was one such alteration. In a break from the model of his Tetrarchic predecessors, Constantine was planning to reinstate hereditary succession to imperial rule. In his letter to these cities in Umbria his concern over the succession of his own sons seems to have taken priority over considerations about specific religious beliefs.
A second hesitation in this petition involved Constantine’s absence from Italy and Rome. Although Constantine visited Rome three times between 312 and 326, thereafter during the final eleven years of his reign he usually resided in cities on or near the northern frontiers, including Constantinople. This new capital relentlessly acquired more benefits and advantages, among them the ius the highly prized “Italian
Right” that deemed the city to be a part of Italy and a shareholder in its privileges. The foundation of a new permanent capital in the East and the expansion of its prestige in turn led to a demotion in the standing of
Constantine’s reputation: Epitome de Caesaribus 41.14, “legere ipse scribere med-itari audire legationes et querimonias provinciarum.” For a survey of petitions during the Donatist and Arian controversies, see Millar (1977) 584—607, and Chapter 10. Burning of petitions: Socrates, HE 1.8.18-19.
Rome in particular, and of central and southern Italy in general. “Italy” seems to have changed location: even as Constantinople was becoming more “Italian,” cities in Italy were becoming more “provincial.” Rome and its inhabitants had to adapt; so did many small towns in peninsular Italy. In its petition Hispellum had become an Italian city that seemed to sense it was losing contact with an increasingly distant emperor, and in its appeal for the patronage of a remote emperor Hispellum seemed to be behaving instead like a faraway provincial city. Its petition was symptomatic of a grand reversal in the relationship between capital and frontier regions, and hence in the definitions of center and periphery. By the end of Constantine’s reign it was apparent that Rome and other cities in peninsular Italy were no longer central in the Roman world. These cities were now on the edge, in a marginal hinterland, seemingly forgotten and ignored.8
In their petition Hispellum and the other cities in Umbria clearly felt more comfortable talking about modifications of old customs than about simply building a new temple and creating a new festival. They hoped that Constantine would be more of a traditionalist than an innovator, more interested in reviving their former prestige than in promoting unexpected innovations (Chapter i). Constantine seems to have appreciated the opportunity to present himselfas a conservative restorer, especially since he was in fact cutting back on his interest in Rome and central Italy in favor of his new capital at Constantinople (Chapter 2), and since he was trying to promote his own sons and other relatives as a new imperial dynasty (Chapter 3). His new capital and his new dynasty both needed the legitimacy of a proper history (Chapter 4). In his rescript to Hispellum the emperor hoped to invent a new future by claiming to revive the past. Even as he looked forward by publicizing himself and his new dynasty, he insisted that his decision preserved old traditions.
World History
