In theLate Roman Empire, usually dated AD 284 to 641, the regional governance district known as theRoman orcivil diocese was made up of a grouping ofprovinces each headed by avicarius, the vicars being the representatives ofpraetorian prefects (who governed directly the dioceses they were resident in). There were initially twelve dioceses, rising to fourteen by the end of the 4th century.
The termdiocese comes from theLatindioecēsis, which derives from theAncient Greekdioíkēsis (διοίκησις) meaning 'administration', 'management', 'assize district', or 'group of provinces'.
Two major reforms to the administrative divisions of the empire were undertaken during theTetrarchy.[1]
The first of these was the multiplication of the number ofprovinces, which had remained largely unchanged since the time ofAugustus, from 48 at the beginning ofDiocletian's reign to around a hundred by the time of his abdication.[2] The multiplication of the provinces was probably undertaken for military, financial, and economic reasons.[3][2] It brought thegovernor closer to the cities which were responsible for the collection of taxes. It also limited the power of the governors and the autonomy of the cities.[4] At the same time, the status of the provinces was regularized.Egypt lost its unique status and was divided into three provinces,[3] whileItalia was 'provincialized' - the numberedregiones established by Augustus received names and were governed bycorrectores.[2] The distinction betweensenatorial andimperial provinces was abolished and henceforth all governors were appointed by the Emperor.[1]
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.[1][5] The empire was divided into twelve dioceses. The largest of these, theDiocese of the East, encompassed sixteenprovinces. Each diocese was governed by anagens vices praefectorum praetorio (Acting Representatives of the Praetorian Prefects) or simply Vicar (vicarius), under thePraetorian prefect, although some provinces were governed directly by the Praetorian Prefect.[6] These vicars had previously been ad hoc representatives of the prefects, but they were now made into permanent, regularised positions.[1] The vicar controlled theprovincial governors (variously titled asconsulares,correctores,praesides) and heard appeals of cases decided at the provincial level (parties could decide whether to appeal to the vicar or the praetorian prefect).[7] The provinces governed byproconsuls (Africa andAsia) remained outside the vicars' jurisdiction,.[8] as did the cities of Rome and Constantinople, which were governed by aPraefectus urbi instead.[9] The vicars had no military powers. Troops stationed in the dioceses fell under the command of acomes rei militaris, who was directly under the control of themagister militum and was in charge of theduces who had the military command of individual provinces.
Many modern scholars date the introduction of the dioceses to AD 296–297.[10][11] A passage ofLactantius, who was hostile to Diocletian because of hispersecution of the Christians, seems to indicate the existence ofvicarii 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 manyrationales,magistri, andvicarii 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 thevicarii praefectorum as being active already in Diocletian's time. Other sources from Diocletian's reign mention one Aurelius Agricolanus who was anagens vices praefectorum praetorio active inHispania and condemned a centurion named Marcellus to be executed for his Christianity, as well as an Aemilianus Rusticianus, who is considered by some scholars to have been the first vicar of the Diocese of the East that we know of. Lactantius also mentions one Sossianus Hierocles as anex vicario active in the East in this period. Septimius Valentio is also attested asagens vices praefectorum praetorio of Rome between 293 and 296. However, these sources do not prove that thesevicarii oragentes vices were already in charge of dioceses with a well-defined and stable territory.[11] Septimius Valentio in particular was definitely the commander of thePraetorian Guard during a period when the Praetorian Prefect was absent from the city, but was not in charge ofItalia Suburbicaria. According to Zuckerman, the establishment of the dioceses should instead be dated to around AD 313/14, after the annexation of Armenia into the Roman empire and the meeting ofConstantine andLicinius inMediolanum.[12][13][undue weight? –discuss] The matter remains controversial.
From 310,Constantine I was one of theAugusti of the Empire and from 324 he was the sole ruler of the whole state. During his reign, he carried out many crucial reforms creating the administrative and military organization of the empire which would last until thefall of the Western Roman Empire.
The principal territorial reform undertaken by Constantine, as part of a process of trial-and-error,[14] was the 'regionalisation' of thePraetorian prefecture. Hitherto, one or twoPraetorian 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 ofclarissimi (between theconsulares and theproconsulares).[18]
The other reason for the weakening of the vicars was the regular dispatch ofcomites, who outranked the vicars and probably had the role of inspecting their conduct.[18]
It was probablyConstantine in 312 who transformed theagens vices prefectorum praetorio of Rome, which had been the commander of the troops stationed in the City when the Praetorian Prefect was absent since theSeveran period, into the civil vicar ofItalia Suburbicaria, as part of his demilitarisation of the city after his victory overMaxentius. Thus, under Constantine, the diocese of Italia was split into the two vicariates of Italia Suburbicaria in the south andItalia Annonaria in the north, under the administration of thevicarius urbis Romae and thevicarius Italiae respectively. Italia Suburbicaria and Italia Annonaria were notde jure dioceses, but vicariates within a single Italian diocese, as theLaterculus Veronensis and theNotitia Dignitatum show.[6] Constantine I also divided thediocese of Moesia into the dioceses ofDacia andMacedonia in 327.[6]
Under EmperorValens (364–378), theDiocese of Egypt was split out of the Diocese of the East.[6] TheNotitia Dignitatum indicates that at some point, theDiocese of Gaul was suppressed and incorporated into the diocese of theSeptem Provinciae.
According to theNotitia Dignitatum, the dioceses of Dacia andIllyricum did not have vicars, but were governed by thePraetorian Prefect of Illyricum directly. Before its suppression, the Diocese of Gaul also seems to have been directly administered by thePraetorian 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 theDiocese of Thrace, which was administered by avicarius 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 acomes Orientis and Egypt, which continued to be governed by aPrefect but was in effect a vicar.
The successors ofTheodosius I made few changes to the administrative subdivisions of the Empire. A few provinces were further subdivided. For example, the provinces ofEpirus,Galatia,Palestina, andThebais were split in two. At the beginning of the 6th century, the province ofAegyptus was also split in two. A separate Vicariate of theLong Walls was created in Thrace byAnastasius I (491-518).
Around the end of the 5th century, the majority of the dioceses of theWestern Roman Empire ceased to exist, following the establishment of theBarbarian kingdoms. There is no evidence that theFranks andBurgundians maintained the Roman provincial system; theVisigoths andVandals did maintain the provinces (governed byrectores oriudices), but not the dioceses or prefectures.[19] In Italia,Odoacer and then theOstrogothic kings, particularlyTheoderic, basically retained the Roman provincial system, including the Praetorian Prefecture of Italia and the two vicariates of Italia Annonaria and Italia Suburbicaria, as well as the various provinces that they contained. When Theoderic conqueredProvence in 508, he also re-established a Diocese of the Gauls, which was promoted to the rank of Prefecture with a capital atArelate two years later. This Praetorian Prefecture was abolished in 536, during the reign ofVitiges, after the cession of Provence to the Franks. The rationale behind Odoacer and Theoderic's maintenance of the Roman provincial system was that they were officially viceroys of the Roman emperor in Constantinople, for whom Italia nominally continued to form part of the Roman empire. The civilian offices, including the vicars,praesides, and Praetorian Prefects, continued to be filled with Roman citizens, while Barbarians without citizenship were barred from holding them. According toCassiodorus, however, the authority of thevicarius urbis Romae was diminished: in the 4th century, he no longer controlled the ten provinces of Italia Suburbicaria, but only the land within forty miles of the City of Rome.[20]
In 535–536,Justinian decided to abolish the dioceses of theEast,Asia, andPontus; their vicars were demoted to simple provincial governors.[21] For example, thecomes Orientis (count of the East) became the title of the governor ofSyria I, while the vicars of Asia and Pontus became governors of Phrygia Pacatiana and Galatia I respectively, with the title ofComes Iustinianus and civilian and military powers.[22] In May 535, Justinian abolished the vicariates ofThrace and the Long Walls, in order to improve the defence of the Long Walls by ending the continuous conflicts between the two vicars. He entrusted the administration of the diocese of Thrace to apraetor Iustinianus with civilian and military powers.[23][24] A year later, in order to improve the efficiency of provisioning troops garrisoned in Thrace, a new prefecture was introduced, thePrefecture of the Islands, which was governed by aquaestor exercitus (Quaestor of the army) based inOdessa. This prefecture contained the provinces ofMoesia II, Scythia Minor, Insulae (theCyclades),Caria, andCyprus.[23][24] In 539, Justinian also abolished the diocese of Egypt, splitting it into five independent circumscriptions (groups of provinces) governed byduces with civilian and military authority, who were direct subordinates of the Praetorian prefect of the East. The Prefect of Egypt, formerly in charge of the whole diocese, was renamed thedux augustalis, and left with control over only the provinces of Aegyptus I and Aegyptus II.[25] Essentially, the modifications to the provincial system carried out by Justinian were motivated by the desire to end the conflict between civilian and military officials, and thus moved away from Diocletian's principle of completely separating civilian and military power. In this, according toJ. B. Bury, Justinian anticipated the introduction of thethemes in the 7th century.[26] Moreover, by abolishing the dioceses, Justinian attempted to simplify the bureaucracy and simultaneously decrease the state's expenses, noting that the vicars had become superfluous, since their courts of appeal were used ever less frequently and the provincial governors could be directly controlled by the Praetorian Prefect, by means of the so-calledtractatores.[27]
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 twoPhrygiae), were placed under the jurisdiction of abiocolytes (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, concerningOsroene andMesopotamia is addressed to theComes Orientis, suggesting that the northern part of the former diocese of the East remained under the authority of theComes 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 under Justinian.[28]
When Africa and Italia were reconquered, Justinian establishedPraetorian prefecture of Africa, while the Praetorian Prefecture of Italia returned to Imperial hands after theGothic War. The whole territory of the Empire in Africa, which had been theDiocese of Africa in the 4th and 5th centuries, was thus promoted to the rank of Prefecture which proves vicars were mini-prefects but different in that they were executive officers whereas prefects could make policy decisions. 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 intoExarchates governed by anExarch, 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 ofvicarii in Italia, but twoagentes vices of the Praetorian Prefect of Italia with their seats in Genova and Rome are mentioned inPope Gregory I's letters.[20][a] These Italianagentes vices are no longer attested after the first half of the seventh century.[29]
In the seventh century, as a result of the establishment of the firstthemes (military districts governed by astrategos 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 fromThessaloniki, had fallen under the Slavs. Thus the Prefect of Illyricum was renamed the Praetorian Prefect of Thessaloniki. In the same period, thedioceses of Dacia andMacedonia finally disappeared as a result of the loss of almost all their territory. However, theTaktikon 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 thethemes until the second half of the 9th century.[32]
Thevicarius was a high official appointed by the Emperor and accountable only to him.[5][10] The position was held byequites who were given the rank ofperfectissimus (before theegregii and after theeminentissimi).[33] Thus, in rank, the vicars were inferior to the governors of the senatorial provinces (theconsulares), 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 ofclarissimus, 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 w−as 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 switched 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. They, the prefects and the governors were in control of the logistical support system of the military: provisioning, maintenance, installation planning and construction, funding.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)