all Dionysius’s offices, the only one which might be thought to be out of keeping with a senatorial career as it now was under Diocletian was his appointment as praeses of Syria Coele. The explanation for this anomaly may be that Dionysius was of equestrian origin and became a senator later. (Arnheim 1972, p. 42.) Even so, he was a senatorial praeses, a very rare animal indeed for the tetrarchy. But Syria also seems to have had at least one senatorial praeses under Constantine, and was one of the few Eastern provinces to change over to consulars under that emperor.
Locrius Verinus, who, like Dionysius, governed Syria under the tetrarchy, seems also to have had appellate jurisdiction at the same time over the diocese as a whole. (Symmachus Ep. 1.2.7; CJ 3.12.1.) In addition, Verinus was evidently a military governor of Syria, commanding an expedition against the Armenians. (Symmachus, Ibid.) He is probably to be identified with the Locrius Verinus who was vicar of Africa between 318 and 321 and urban prefect from 323 to 325.
These three cases leave Syria as the only province traditionally governed by senatorial governors styled “legates” (legati Augusti pro praetore) not to have been transferred to equestrian governors. This governorship was also to give birth, through the diocesan appellate jurisdiction attached to it, to the Constantinian post of Comes Orientis, as will be seen in the next chapter. (See Chapter 3.)
In addition to the governors of Syria, there are several other cases of praesides under the tetrarchy who have been claimed as noble, but none of these can be substantiated. (Arnheim 1972, page 43.) Of the 37 Western praesides datable to the tetrarchy, 27 are known to have been non-senatorial and the origins of the remaining 10 are unknown. So much for Diocletianic praesides .
In addition to the drastically pared proconsular provinces of Africa and Asia and that curious relic of a former age, Syria, the only offices left to the senatorial aristocracy under the tetrarchy were the Italian and Achaean governorships called correctorships, the urban prefecture, and the entirely ornamental ordinary consulate (i.e the position of one of the two first consuls of the year, who traditionally gave their name to the year.) Though long the popular term of reference for a legate of consular rank, the title consularis is not to be found in Italy until the reign of Constantine, who made it the official title of some Italian governorships.
In Achaea, the nobles suffered a temporary setback. L. Turranius Gratianus, a noble who was to become urban prefect in 290, was corrector of Achaea probably in the first years of the tetrarchy. (iii. 6103, cf. vi. 1128 and p. 845 = vi. 31241.)
Among the urban prefects under the tetrarchy were such men as Ceionius Varus, L. Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufinianus Bassus, L. Turranius Gratianus, Anicius Faustus, Nummius Tuscus, Aradius Rufinus, and T. Flavius Postumius Titianus. The last two were also ordinary consuls under the tetrarchy, and A. Annius Anullinus, an ordinary consul in 295, was to become urban prefect under Maxentius in 306–307. A member of the Anician house, Anicius Faustus, is known only as ordinary consul in 298, having already been a suffect consul, as is indicated by the number “II” after his name in the fasti. These noble consuls and urban prefects were representatives of families which, though now excluded from most positions of real importance, were within a generation to make their appearance in the fasti of a greatly enlarged and more significant range of posts.
The contrast between them and the Diocletianic vicars could hardly be greater, for, not surprisingly, Diocletian appointed to these new posts of his own creation men whom he could trust, men of humble origin who owed their rise to imperial goodwill. Though only six Diocletianic vicars can be traced, it is significant that four of these are known to have been of non-senatorial origin. (Lambrechts, 1937, pp. 110 ff.)
Similarly, of the five praetorian prefects whose names are known for the tetrarchy, three were of non-senatorial origin and the remaining two of unknown origin. Afranius Hannibalianus, whom Lambrechts claims as of senatorial birth, and his colleague Iulius Ascpepiodotus, pose an awkward problem. Basing himself largely on these two praetorian prefects, Lambrechts sees the period as one of “fusion” between the senatorial and equestrian orders. (Ibid.) However, though of senatorial rank from 292, neither Hannibalianus nor Asclepiodotus appears to have been of senatorial birth. Secondly, neither was appointed to an equestrian post while holding senatorial rank; the two men were already praetorian prefects when they became consuls in 292, and they appear to have continued as such through their consulships and beyond. Thirdly, and most significantly, these two are the only men of senatorial rank known to have held equestrian posts in the tetrarchy. At the same time, however, this period saw almost all the provincial governorships, hitherto the preserve of the nobles, concentrated in the hands of equestrians. What sort of fusion is this? While equestrians gain access to and, indeed, a monopoly of senatorial posts, senators are for the most part condemned to political impotence. There was no fusion between the two social groups, the nobles and equestrians, nor was there fusion between senatorial and equestrian titles, except in the cases of our two praetorian prefects. Though it was unusual to give a praetorian prefect an ordinary consulship while in office, the effect—namely the elevation of the prefect concerned to senatorial rank—was no different from that achieved by the lesser honor of the ornamenta consularia, which had long been conferred on praetorian prefects in office.
Under the tetrarchy, the two careers, the senatorial and equestrian, were quite separate, converging only at the ordinary consulate. A man of noble birth would begin his career with one or more of the traditional republican magistracies, after which the only positions open to him were the urban curatelae, the correctorships, the governorships of Syria, the proconsulates of Africa and Asia, the urban prefecture, and the ordinary consulate.
From the limited range of offices open to nobles it is clear that the senatorial cursus honorum (i.e. career) under the tetrarchy was a cul-de-sac. But, if so, why were praetorian prefects so ready to exchange their title vir eminentissimus for the clarissimate, as they did in assuming the ordinary consulate, which was still regarded as the crown of a man’s career? The consulate was, as it had been for three centuries, merely a title of honor imbued with the aura of antiquity. Though the equestrian career was now the path to positions of importance in the imperial service, Roman traditionalism continued to rank the senatorial order above the equestrian, and to regard the ordinary consulship as a precious prize. A praetorian prefect would escape the disabilities of senatorial rank which affected the nobles, since he could rise no higher. The fact that a praetorian prefect could be a clarissimus while in office should mean that, theoretically speaking, the praetorian prefecture was open to nobles. But this was not actually the case. The anomaly was, of course, the result of a conflict between ceremonial tradition and practical policy. In theory a praetorian prefect with the rank of eminentissimus was of lower rank than any clarissimus, a title borne by all senators. In fact he was more important than anyone except the emperor. To reconcile theory and practice praetorian prefects were given senatorial rank, thus producing another anomaly, which has played havoc with historians.
In her very thoroughly researched study on The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine (2015), Patricia Southern quotes my 1972 book as showing “…that senators still governed provinces as praesides and consulares well into the fourth century.” (Southern, p. 245.) The words are not mine but Patricia Southern’s, based on the Fasti (lists of office-holders), in an appendix to my book. Were there senatorial provincial governors “well into the fourth century”? Yes, but, as can be more clearly seen from Statistical Table I in my 1972 book, on “The Social Origins of Western Praesides (284–337), there were no praesides of senatorial origin in the West under Diocletian and the tetrarchy, but nine under Constantine, with fifteen being of non-senatorial origin. As for consulares, this was a title specially created by Constantine for provincial governors of senatorial rank. Statistical Table II in my 1972 book shows forty-nine of senatorial origin as against four of non-senatorial origin. Similarly, there were no vicars of senatorial origin under Diocletian and the tetrarchy but six under Constantine (Statistical Table III). Likewise, none of Diocletian’s praetorian prefects were of senatorial origin though one of Maxentius’s was and six under Constantine as against three known to be of non-senatorial origin.