Holdings: Praefecti praetorio

Praefecti praetorio: dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Ruciński, Sebastian (Author)
Format:	Book
Language:	Polish
Published:	Bydgoszcz Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego 2013
Subjects:	Römisches Reich > Prätorianer Geschichte 2 v.Chr. - 282
Online Access:	Abstract Inhaltsverzeichnis
Item Description:	Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Praefecti praetorium
Physical Description:	799 s. il. (w tym kolor.). - Ill. 25 cm
ISBN:	9788370969028

Staff View

MARC


LEADER	00000nam a2200000 c 4500
001	BV041344307
003	DE-604
005	20140604
007	t
008	131007s2013 a\|\|\| \|\|\|\| 00\|\|\| pol d
020			\|a 9788370969028 \|9 978-83-7096-902-8
035			\|a (OCoLC)879010898
035			\|a (DE-599)BVBBV041344307
040			\|a DE-604 \|b ger \|e rakwb
041	0		\|a pol
049			\|a DE-12
084			\|a 6,12 \|2 ssgn
100	1		\|a Ruciński, Sebastian \|e Verfasser \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Praefecti praetorio \|b dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr. \|c Sebastian Ruciński
246	1		\|a Præfecti prætorio
264		1	\|a Bydgoszcz \|b Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego \|c 2013
300			\|a 799 s. \|b il. (w tym kolor.). - Ill. \|c 25 cm
336			\|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|b n \|2 rdamedia
338			\|b nc \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Praefecti praetorium
610	2	7	\|a Römisches Reich \|b Prätorianer \|0 (DE-588)4076781-4 \|2 gnd \|9 rswk-swf
648		7	\|a Geschichte 2 v.Chr. - 282 \|2 gnd \|9 rswk-swf
689	0	0	\|a Römisches Reich \|b Prätorianer \|0 (DE-588)4076781-4 \|D b
689	0	1	\|a Geschichte 2 v.Chr. - 282 \|A z
689	0		\|5 DE-604
856	4	2	\|m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment \|q application/pdf \|u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026793022&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA \|3 Abstract
856	4	2	\|m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment \|q application/pdf \|u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026793022&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA \|3 Inhaltsverzeichnis
940	1		\|n oe
999			\|a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-026793022
942	1	1	\|c 355.009 \|e 22/bsb \|f 0901 \|g 37
942	1	1	\|c 355.009 \|e 22/bsb \|f 0901 \|g 438

Record in the Search Index

_version_	1804151419134017536
adam_text	SPIS TREŚCI CZĘŚĆ PIERWSZA · WPROWADZENIE I · WOKÓŁ TEMATU 13 Przedmiot badań ................................... 13 Źródła ......................................... 16 Literatura przedmiotu ................................ 20 Dodatkowe wyjaśnienia ............................... 25 II · TRZY WIZJE URZĘDU 27 Mowa Mecenasa ................................... 27 Praefectus cohortium praetoriarum ......................... 35 Praefectus praetor io o mniaąue rei publicae ..................... 39 Wymowa źródeł prawnych ............................. 41 Opinia Zosimosa ................................... 44 Poglądy Jana z Lydii ................................. 45 Teoretyczne modele prefektury pretorium ..................... 48 CZĘŚĆ DRUGA ■ ANALIZA III · PRAEFECTURAE VIS MODICA 53 Dzieło Augusta .................................... 53 Niejasna rola Gajusza Mecenasa .......................... 54 Powstanie gwardii pretoriańskiej .......................... 59 6 SPIS TREŚCI Teorie o powołaniu urzędu ............................. 69 Pierwsi prefekci ................................... 72 L. Sej usz Strabon i jego powiązania rodzinne ................... 77 Prefektura pretorium przed Sejanem ........................ 91 IV ■ SEJAN 95 Znaczenie postaci Sejana .............................. 95 Droga do władzy, nominacja i pierwsze działania ................. 96 Reformator ...................................... 99 Wśród dworskich intryg ............................... 104 Apogeum i upadek .................................. 118 Spadek po Sejanie .................................. H4 V · NORMALIZACJA 149 Od Tyberiusza do Klaudiusza ............................ 149 Makron ........................................ 150 Reforma Kaliguli ................................... 155 M. Arecynus Klemens i jego kolega ......................... 156 Prefekci Klaudiusza ................................. 162 Przejawy normalizacji ................................ 170 VI · EiMANCYPACJA NERONA 173 Miody cesarz ..................................... 17З Burrus ......................................... 174 Niedoszły następca Burrusa ............................. 181 Ofoniusz Tygellin .................................. 183 Koledzy Tygellina .................................. 190 Prefekt regentem i pierwszym doradcą ....................... 194 VII · WOJENNE EKSPERYMENTY 197 Rok czterech cesarzy ................................. 197 Korneliusz Lakon ................................... 199 Prefekci Otona .................................... 202 Prefekci Witeliusza .................................. 206 Prefekci Flawiuszy .................................. 209 Tyb. Juliusz Aleksander ............................... 216 Innowacje czasów wojny domowej ......................... 234 VIII ■ REWOLUCJA TYTUSA 237 Młodość Tytusa .................................... 237 Cezar dowódcą gwardii ............................... 240 Istota rewolucji .................................... 248 SPIS TREŚCI 7 IX · KONTRREWOLUCJA DOMICJANA 251 Znaczenie panowania Domicjana .......................... 251 IV Satyra Juwenalisa i Papirus Berliński ...................... 252 Korneliusz Fuskus .................................. 260 L. Juliusz Ursus .................................... 265 L. Laberiusz Maksymus ............................... 269 Kasperiusz Elianus .................................. 271 Spisek ......................................... 276 Charakter przemian ................................. 285 X · VIRI MILITARES 291 Czasy stabilizacji ................................... 291 Atiusz Suburanus i jego kolega ........................... 292 Tyb. Klaudiusz Liwianus ............................... 303 Koledzy i następcy Liwianusa ............................ 310 Prefekci na monetach ................................ 313 Spadek po Trajanie .................................. 324 Wczesna kariera Marcjusza Turbona ........................ 333 Turbon a urzędowanie Septy ej usza Klarusa.................... 340 Marcjusz Turbon dowódcą gwardii ......................... 347 Historia Augusta o prefektach Antoninusa Piusa ................. 351 Prefekci pretorium i garnizon rzymski ....................... 352 Trzech wojskowych prefektów ........................... 356 Kontynuacja z elementami modyfikacji ...................... 364 XI · BIUROKRACI I WODZOWIE 369 Od pokoju ku wojnie ................................. 369 Biurokrata i wódz .................................. 370 Prefekt z Kolonii ................................... 380 Epistula ad Saepinum ................................. 383 Prefekci Marka Aureliusza .............................. 391 Ignotus pod zwierzchnictwem Awidiusza Kasjusza ................ 397 Tabula Banasitana.................................. 398 Biurokraty zaeja urzędu ............................... 401 XII · SŁABOŚĆ KOMMODUSA 405 Drugi »Neron« .................................... 405 Kandydaci na nowego »Burrusa« .......................... 406 Prefekci Aureliusza Kleandra ............................ 420 Domniemana prefektura Kleandra ......................... 427 »Następcy« Kleandra ................................. 433 Emiliusz Letus .................................... 439 Konsekwencje cesarskiej słabości .......................... 443 S SPIS TREŚCI XIII · PLAUCJAN 447 Wojna domowa .................................... 447 Prefekci z czasów wojny domowej ......................... 449 Droga Plaucjana do władzy ............................. 455 Kolegialność urzędu Plaucjana ........................... 462 Plaucjan w oczach Kasjusza Diona ......................... 467 Socer et consocer ................................... 469 Necessarius dominorum ............................... 474 Afryka, konsulat i pierwsza »niełaska« ....................... 478 Arcus argentariorum i ludi saeculares ........................ 480 Akwedukty i cegielnie ................................ 482 Sędzia ......................................... 483 Upadek ........................................ 492 Trwały wpływ działalności Plaucjana ....................... 496 XIV · ŻOŁNIERZE I JURYŚCI 499 Polityka Sewerów po upadku Plaucjana ...................... 499 Następcy Plaucjana ................................. 500 Prefekci pretorium a wigilowie ........................... 513 Wiceprefekci pretorium ............................... 515 Prefekci w drodze na tron .............................. 516 Protokoły trybunału cesarskiego .......................... 521 Prefekt cesarzem ................................... 522 Militaryzacja urzędu za Makryna .......................... 524 Prefekci Heliogabala ................................. 526 »Superprefekci« według H.-G. Pflauma ....................... 539 Datacja śmierci Ulpiana i jej konsekwencje .................... 542 Zwodnicze źródła o Juliuszu Paulusie ........................ 545 Krytyka teorii H.-G. Pflauma ............................ 547 Okres wpływów Ulpiana .............................. 555 Prawniczy epizod .................................. 561 XV · KRYZYS PAŃSTWA 563 Przejawy kryzysu .................................. 563 Prefekci Aleksandra Sewera po Ulpianie ...................... 565 Formae prefektów pretorium ............................ 57* Od śmierci Aleksandra Sewera do Gordiana III .................. 572 Prefekci Gordiana III ................................. 575 Od Filipa Araba do Probusa ............................. 590 Nieznani, niepewni i wątpliwi prefekci ....................... 602 O krok od tronu ................................... 612 SPIS TREŚCI 9 CZĘŚĆ TRZECIA ■ PODSUMOWANIE XVI · STATUS PREFEKTÓW 617 Periodyzacja ..................................... 617 Lista prefektów .................................... 618 Powrót do Mowy Mecenasa ............................. 628 Doświadczenie .................................... 629 Wyróżnienia i sankcje ................................ 638 Przynależność stanowa ............................... 648 XVII · ZADANIA I UPRAWNIENIA 659 Obszary działalności prefektów pretorium ..................... 659 Uprawnienia militarne ................................ 666 Uprawnienia policyjno-administracyjne ...................... 670 Uprawnienia polityczne ............................... 672 Uprawnienia sądowe ................................. 674 XVIII · ZAKOŃCZENIE 677 Ewolucja urzędu ...................................677 Wartość teoretycznych modeli ...........................681 BIBLIOGRAFIA 683 Czasopisma ...................................... 683 Wybrane prace zbiorowe .............................. 689 Zbiory źródeł ..................................... 690 Źródła literackie ................................... 697 Literatura przedmiotu ................................ 707 SPIS ILUSTRACJI 753 Tabele .........................................753 Rysunki i plany ....................................754 INDEKSY 757 Indeks osobowy ...................................757 Indeks nazw geograficznych .............................773 SUMMARY 777 prefecţi pr^torium COMMANDERS OF THE PRAETORIAN GUARD FROM 2 ВС ТО 282 AD SUMMARY Praetorian prefects were people of power, whose task was to protect the emperor, to sustain his rule and to ensure obedience, to seek out the polit¬ ically uncertain elements and to eliminate them. This monograph covers only a fragment of the history of their office: from its inception to the period of the greatest influence in the midst of crisis which took hold the Roman state in the 3rd century AD. The preliminary deliberations are concerned with the views on the nature of the prefecture of the praetorium which were expressed by the antique authors. These general pieces ofinformation are verified in the subsequent chapters, which constitute a substantial part of this work, based largely on prosopographic studies. The conducted analysis permits the author to summarize the body of available knowledge about the praetorian prefec¬ ture in the period of the Early Empire. The views of the antique authors The theoretical deliberations of the antique authors render an invaluable as¬ sistance in reconstructing the image of the praetorian prefecture. Cassius Dio should be credited with the most important paragraph, which he included in the so-called Speech of Maecenas, in Book LII of his work. One of the pieces of advice supposedly given by Maecenas was the creation of a permanent office of the praetorian prefect. Dio s text is the most extensive passage devoted to the praetorian prefecture, which is why it has become the fundamental source 777 778 PRvEFECTI PRETORIO in the studies of the role of the office. It would be worthwhile to recapitulate what Cassius Dio states in the relevant fragment: ι. praetorian prefects should be équités; 2. they should be recruited from among those who are experienced in the military and administrative matters; 3. there should be two prefects at the same time, since: (a) one may become too independent; (b) any greater number leads to conflict and decline of discipline; (c) two prefects maintain the continuity of command; 4. prefects stand guard over the emperor; 5. prefects command (with the right to dispense punishment): (a) the praetorians; (b) all other soldiers on the territory of Italy with the exception of those who are subordinate to commanders of senatorial rank; (c) all persons in the emperor s surroundings; 6. reservation stating that apart from the above no other competences are granted; 7. prefect should be appointed for life; 8. the prefecture of the praetorium is higher in hierarchy than the prefec¬ ture of the Vigiles and annona. Even a cursory reading yields the observation that Dio s text comprises two elements: a certain amount of fact which is derived from the practice of the praetorian prefecture in the ist and the 2nd century AD, but also a distinct polemic element. It is particularly evident in the deliberations about the num¬ ber of the prefects and their competences. In the latter case especially, the author states that the prerogatives of the prefecture should not be extended, from which it clearly follows that this had been the actual case. Therefore Dio does not what prefecture is in his day or was under Augustus, but what is should be! If Dio s account is juxtaposed with other antique visions of the office, one sees that his proposals represent a compromise. That may have been a political programme developed as part of the agenda of the senatorial elite, which was nonetheless never fully implemented. Apart from Cassius Dio, the most important sources of knowledge about the history of the praetorian prefecture, and the entire history of the Early Empire in the ist cent. AD as well, are the works of Cornelius Tacitus. This author devotes much attention to the person and activities of Aelius Seianus. In the second paragraph of the 4th book of Annals, Tacitus describes not so much the figure of Sejanus, but the nature of the office he held: summary 779 ι. before Sej anus the praetorian prefecture had minor significance; 2. Sejanus carried out a reform which strengthened the office, through the erection of the Castra Praetoria and concentration of the cohorts dispersed previously throughout the surrounding towns. 3. it was he who began to appoint centurions and military tribunes at his own discretion; 4. the reform gave Sejanus the influence on the rule in the empire and permitted him to pursue personal political goals. Thus Tacitus distinguished between two periods in the development of the office — before the construction of the Castra Praetoria and afterwards — the difference consists in the redeployment of the troops under the prefect s command. He draws a clear distinction between the fundamental tasks of the prefect, which were limited to exercising command over the praetorians, and the exceptional political influence resulting from the personal confidence of emperor Tiberius. That vision of the praetorian prefecture is additionally cor¬ roborated by the terminology employed by Tacitus. The official name — prae- fectus praetorio — predominates, but the Roman historian also resorts to the term praefectus cohortium praetorianum. For Tacitus, praefectus praetorio is principally the commander of the praetorian cohorts. The tendency is con¬ firmed in the imperial biographies by Suetonius and the work of Cassius Dio. The view propounding limited and strictly military prerogatives of the praetorian prefecture clashes with the opposite opinion. Velleius Paterculus explains the singular role of Sejanus at the side of emperor Tiberius to his readers. He alludes to the equestrian origins of Sejanus , remarking that it should not be an obstacle in attaining the highest dignities and significance. Sejanus was not only the ruler s closest associate, but actively participated in the imperial authority. Velleius leaves the reader in no doubt that the activities of the influential prefect had much broader extent than merely commanding the guards, than military functions in general — not only does he stand guard over the emperor, but also over the senate and the people of Rome, through which the universal nature of his authority is manifested. Similar statements may be found in the Roman legal sources. In the surviv¬ ing body of documents, only three fragments are preserved from the sole work devoted to the prefecture of the praetorium, entitled Liber de officio praefecti praetorio, written by Arcadius Aurelius Charisius. The author puts forward a thesis about the genetic origins of the praetorian prefecture, whose Repub¬ lican equivalent was the function of the dictator s aide — the commander of the cavalry (magister equitum). By virtue of analogy, Charisius defines the relations between the emperor and the prefect. Since in practice the Repub¬ lican magister equitum had the same powers as the dictator, while its only 780 PREFECŢI PRETORIO limitation was his subordination to the dictator and the latter s will, it should be assumed that in the definition advanced by Arcadius Charisius the powers of the praetorian prefect are identical with those of the emperor, with the ex¬ ception that the prefect is subject to imperial command. The thesis does not originate from Charisius, who lived in the times of Constantine the Great. A much shorter passage, remarking on the same dependency between the office of the praetorian prefect and the Republican commander of the cav¬ alry, is preserved in Book I of the Digest. The fragment stems from the work of Sextus Pomponius, a jurist Uving in the times of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. According to Herodian, a similar idea was to be expressed by emperor Macrinus in a letter informing the senate about his taking of the power. The concept presented by Charisius was upheld by John the Lydian, who quotes the former directly, rendering it in Greek. John attempts elaborate on the de¬ scription, but the value the information he provides is negligible. In many cases it cannot be verified in any way. Finally, one should refer to Zosimos who comments of the reforms of Con¬ stantine the Great in Book II of his New History. He also mentions the one which transformed the praetorian prefecture into a regional office. For the sake of comparison, Zosimos provides a brief depiction of its former shape. The most important facts — the features of the office in the quoted passage may be summarised thus: ι. two praetorian prefects exercised power simultaneously and jointly; 2. their military power encompassed the guard, the entire garrison of Rome, as well as all border troops; 3. the authority of the prefects was considered second to the imperial one; 4. they held the annona militaris; 5. they would punish offences against military discipline. All in all, three models of the praetorian prefecture may be distinguished in the antique literary sources: the minimalist, the universal and the limited one. The first sees the prerogatives of the prefecture as limited to the command over the cohorts of the praetorians, while other potential functions held by these officers were to result solely from an extraordinary and temporary im¬ perial mandate. The universal model presupposes that the prefect had at least potentially the same powers as the emperor — only the presence and the will of the ruler were its constraint. The third model, presented by Cassius Dio, is an intermediate form — a compromise which perhaps reflects the actual practice in certain periods, but remains largely a postulate rather than a real solution. SUMMARY 781 Chronology of the transformations of the office The existence of the three models of the praetorian prefecture, with the two first functioning from the beginnings of the office, stemmed from inconsistent practice. One may have the impression that the two extreme models competed throughout the history of the Early Empire, gaining ascendancy in various periods and, naturally enough, came in slightly different varieties, adapted to the needs and conditions of a given time. One may venture a thesis that the general trend of development set out from the minimalist model to arrive at the universal form in the 3rd century. However, the development was by no means linear. In the course of the process, five periods may be distinguished: 1. development of the fundamentals of the office (from Augustus to Nero: 36 ВС - 69 AD); 2. period of experiments associated with the Year of the Four Emperors (from Galba to Titus: 69-81); 3. the classic period (from Domitian to Marcus Aurelius: 81-177/180); 4. the period of shifting tendencies (from Commodus to the death of Ulpian: 177/180-223); 5. the period of the crisis of state (from the death of Ulpian until 282). The first period begins with the establishment of the prefecture, although cer¬ tain tendencies could have been observed earlier, during the II triumvirate, when Maecenas was granted extraordinary powers. It end is marked by the death of Nero. Already at that time there is evidence attesting to the two trends in the history of the prefecture. Both Sejanus and Macro (14-38) aspired to the universal role, which was later also partly assumed by Burrus (51-62), while the limited model of the prefecture functioned during the reign of Au¬ gustus, in 38-51 (under Caligula and Claudius) and after the death of Burrus. Leaving aside the detailed source information concerning individual prefects and their role at the side of the emperors, the distinction between the uni¬ versal and limited prefecture overlaps with the information about the office being held by one prefect (15-38 and 51-62) or jointly by two. However, one should make the reservation that the collégial nature of the prefecture during the reign of Augustus is not unequivocally confirmed, except for 2 ВС, when the first pair was appointed. Furthermore, information on that account is pro¬ vided only by Cassius Dio who, in the Speech of Maecenas, strongly advocates entrusting the prefecture to two (and only two) prefects at the same time. In the events following the death of Augustus, in the year 14, only Seius Strabo is mentioned. Admittedly, he briefly gains a colleague in the person of his son, but soon Sejanus would be the sole incumbent prefect. This state of af¬ fairs would continue uninterruptedly until 38 and, curiously enough, would not change even after the downfall of Sejanus, who must have been a dire PREFECŢI PRETORIO warning to Tiberius against the dangers associated with having a disloyal commander of the guard. It seems therefore that Caligula and Claudius were quite consistent in appointing two prefects simultaneously, until 51, when on Agrippina s instigation the office was assumed by Burrus only. One may hazard a guess that the empress was afraid that the other prefect would not be loyal towards her. From this point of view the solution might have appeared optimal at the time. However, as soon as Burrus died, Nero, having gained full political freedom, immediately appointed two prefects. The existence of the joint body must have substantially restricted their authority, as the sources offer information about the efforts of Tigellinus who did his utmost to get rid of his colleague. Nonetheless, no details are known. The second period has been called a time of experiments, which concerned various aspects relating to the history of the praetorian prefecture. They re¬ sulted from the exceptional experience of the civil war and the limitations with which the ephemeral emperors ofthat time had to contend. The people came from the administrative apparatus, from among officers of lower than equestrian rank, though a senator was appointed as well. Entrusting the com¬ mand to Titus, the emperor s son, was a complete novelty. We may only guess that it took place in 71, upon the dismissal of Tib. Julius Alexander. The silence of the sources is the only grounds for the inference that Titus commanded the guard after the death of Vespasian, during his own imperial rule. His activities represent the most important experiment ofthat period. The third period begins with the reign of Domitian and lasts uninterrupt¬ edly until the death of Marcus Aurelius, or event the first years of Commodus. Here, the previously marginal epigraphic sources play a much greater role. In the cases of most prefects the precise dates of the terms in office cannot be stated. This is due to fact that there are no historiographie sources avail¬ able to fill the gap in Tacitus narrative. The situation improves somewhat from the late reign of Hadrian, through Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius thanks to the information contained in the Historia Augusta. Consequently, we know that the list of the prefects is incomplete, in particular as regards the reign of Trajan. From Hadrian onwards, one may hazard a thesis that the list is does not have any gaps, but there is no certainty. On the other hand, no other period in the history of the praetorian prefecture during the era of the Early Empire offers such an abundance of detail relating to the social background and the careers of the prefects prior to assuming the office. It is undoubtedly Domitian who should be credited with reinstituting praetorian prefecture in its former shape, while setting new standards at the same time. These are chiefly manifested in a certain regularity of appointments and in the inclusion of the function itself into the equestrian cursus honorum. We may surmise that Domitian consistently appointed pairs of prefects throughout his SUMMARY 783 entire reign. Most likely, the practice continued under Trajan. Only Hadrian went against the tradition, entrusting the post to Március Turbo, for a period of several years at that. The emperor changed his policy only late in his life, probably preparing the ground for the takeover of Antoninus Pius. It seems that the latter repeated an identical pattern, with M. Gavius Maximus as the prefect who held the office for a number of years, and then was succeeded by his protege, G. Tatius Maximus. It was some time before a pair of guard commanders in office became a standard yet again. During there reign of the Antonines, one observes a proclivity to select prefects from among people with military background, who continued their career as equestrian civilian procurators, and then held the so-called grand prefectures — of the annona, Vigiles, and most of all Egypt. The available sources do not permit one to state whether the political nature of the authority of the praetorian prefects had been drastically diminished, but we know of no prefect who aspired to the extraordinary role, despite the fact that they remained in office for a number of years, frequently without the constraint of a second prefect. Probably the fact that the emperors at the time were mature and enjoyed widespread au¬ thority provided a sufficient safeguard. None of the rulers allowed the prefects to increase their influence, partly by surrounding themselves by a greater number of advisors rather than relying on only one. The political influence of the guard commanders was manifested in the enhanced powers of the col¬ légial body of the consilium principis, which afforded insight into the major affairs of the state, but whether it extended their competences is difficult to assess. The involvement of the guard commanders in the administration of the Roman state, Italy in particular, cannot be unequivocally determined either. The sole and unique source, namely the inscription from Saepinum, does not enable one to state anything conclusive about the extent of such intervention. Still, there is no doubt that there appeared a tendency to use guard prefects as field commanders in the course of the contemporary wars with Dacia and, especially during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, with the Marcomanni. The fourth period begins with Commodus ascension to the throne, and lasts until the death of Ulpian in 223. The coverage of the period in the sources is extremely patchy, and the years 185-190/192 in particular are very scantily represented in the sources, which makes the chronology of the period very uncertain. This concerns not only the dates of the terms in office, but even relative chronology, i.e. the determination of the sequence of successive pre¬ fects. It is highly likely that an unknown number of ignoti were active at the time. Difficulties in chronology appear again during the first years of the reign of Septimius Severus (193-197), when neither precise dates of assuming the office nor dates of dismissals are known. In turn, the prefects in 205-223 seem relatively well known, and the only doubtful spell is 212-217. Unfortunately, 784 PREFECŢI PRETORIO the determination of absolute chronology presents a tremendous difficulty. The moment of Caracalla s death and the short reign of Macrinus (217-218) are times when greater precision is attainable. The rule of Heliogabalus and, to a large extent, the reign of Alexander Severus is where the problems with chronology reappear, and have given rise to numerous controversies among researchers. In that period the Romans reverted to the practice which was in evidence in the first period: again, there are guard commanders equipped with extensive and extraordinary competences, prefects whose powers are tantamount to those of the emperor. Two prefects who undoubtedly played such a role were Tigidius Perennis and G. Fulvius Plautianus, but given the fact that under Commodus the office was held independently by P. Atilius Aebucianus, L. Julius Vehilius Gallus Julianus and above all by Q. Aemilius Laetus, it may be surmised that their role also exceeded the average prerog¬ atives of the prefects. There is no certainty, however, especially with respect to the first two figures, as their terms in office overlap with the times of Cle- ander s influence. From the formal point of view, the latter is rather unlikely to have held the prefect s office (which unfortunately cannot be ruled out), although he is ascribed the title on several occasions in Historia Augusta. His role at Commodus side demonstrates forcefully that the exceptional position of the guard commanders at the time was not a permanent feature of the office. The role of the most important confidant and the first minister may have been assumed by anyone who was close enough to the emperor and enjoyed his confidence. It follows from the sources that whether or not the prefect held the office on his own must have been a significant factor. When Septimius Severus attempted to curb the influence of Plautianus by appoint¬ ing Q. Aemilius Saturninus, a confrontation ensued and the latter lost his life. We do not know what caused such a shift in the development of the office. In the times of Commodus it may have been immaturity (some researchers claim it was cunning) of the emperor himself, who readily shifted the burden of the rule onto others. Why the model was continued by Septimius Severus is hard to divine. A similar situation took place during the reign of Elagabalus and Alexander Severus. Thus, the people from the emperor s closest circle exercised actual power, while the emperor was contented with the title itself. Paradoxically, the role played by Plautianus, whom the sources extensively discuss, must have been more limited and stemmed from the confidence of the ruler and family connections. Another tendency which became manifest mainly after Plautianus s death, was filling the post with famous jurists of the Severan era, with Aemilius Papinianus, M. Opellius Severus Macrinus and Ulpian as the foremost examples. However, an earlier prefect, P. Taruttienus Paternus, appointed as early as the reign of Marcus Aurelius, had a similar background. The quality had come to notice in the antiquity, and this was SUMMARY 785 probably the reason why some sources attributed praetorian prefecture to jurist Julius Paulus, although the tradition does not seem greatly credible. Contemporary researchers also draw on that view in reconstructing the fasti of the office by relying on the assumption that one prefect must have been an experienced lawyer, while the other had the skills afforded by a military career. Consequently, legal education has also been attributed to Valerius Pa- truinus and T. Messius Extricatus. The assumption yields another conclusion, namely that in the discussed period the praetorian prefecture was usually filled with two prefects. One should exercise caution in adopting such as¬ sumptions. In general, the information provided by the sources confirm such a state of affairs, but the data applies to particular chronological points (the years 205, 211/212, 217-218, 223/224). Which solutions were adopted at other times is only a conjecture of the contemporary scholars, whose guesses are frequently at odds with one another. The last period encompasses the years 223-282, from the death of Ulpian to the timepoint where the scope of this study ends. Its major feature is drastic deterioration in the quality of available sources, which may serve to recon¬ struct the picture of the office at that time. This is by no means a surprise — the problem concerns the entire history of the 3rd century. As a result, there is a considerable number of doubtful or fictitious names in the list of pre¬ fects. Most of them are prefects mentioned in the Historia Augusta or certain manuscripts of the Code of Justinian. In practical terms, the fasti of the prae¬ torian prefecture cannot be reconstructed after 223. The prefects of the period may be assigned to individual reigns, but even this should be done with a fair margin of doubt in some cases. In several instances one can but conclude that a given prefect held office in the 3rd century. Status of the prefects in the 1st period The first period is distinguished from the later times by a different hierarchy of the major equestrian prefectures. Until Nero, praetorian prefects were pro¬ moted to the governorship of Egypt. From 69 onwards, the sequence changes and the prefecture of the praetorium becomes a crowning jewel of the eques¬ trian cursus honorum. Although there is no certain information about the ge¬ ographical origins of all prefects of the period, we may venture a thesis that an overwhelming majority came from Italy, sometimes from Rome itself, and since the reign of Claudius possibly from the western provinces of the Empire. However, it should be emphasized that there is no indication that the fact had any substantial significance in taking decision of the appointment. Much may be said about the social standing of the prefects families in earlier generations. Certain information on that score concerns only Sejanus, whose father was a very well connected eques (but no such information is available on Seius Strabo himself), Catonius Iustus and Nymphidius Sabinus, 786 PREFECŢI PRETORIO whose father was unknown, which means that the prefect was born out of wedlock. Information on the base origins of Ofonius Tigelh nus is provided by Tacitus, but I sincerely doubt whether that was not a rhetorical exaggera¬ tion on the part of the author, who wished to slight a figure he did not like. A similar device is used by Tacitus with regard to Sejanus who, according to numerous sources boasted family connections with consuls, while Tacitus narrative shows him as a petit bourgeois , who usurped a status he did not deserve. We have more information about the estate of the guard commanders prior to becoming prefects, though it should be noted that our knowledge here is fragmentary as well. Even Sejanus s previous offices are unknown, and only the status of his father permits the conclusion that they were of equestrian nature. The fact that as many as three prefects in that period originated from an order lower than equestrian is a noteworthy one. They themselves were promoted to the second privileged estate. The change in the social status of an incumbent prefect happened only once in that period and concerned Sejanus. Our knowledge about the experience and the preparation of the future leaders of the guard is very selective. Certain information is available only with respect to Afranius Burrus, whose example is exceedingly symptomatic: Tacitus quotes his tremendous military experience, while the preserved in¬ scriptions speak rather about administrative functions. This shows that the tradition in the historiographie sources, which are frequently characterised by a highly polemic and subjective approach, is not always credible. The only observation we may be allowed to make is that during the period there devel¬ ops a practice of appointing praetorian prefects from among the commanders of the Vigiles (two cases) and the prefects of the annona (one case). Still, this was not a standard practice. In all three cases, the sources point to other, much more important reasons for the appointment. Macro was chosen by Tiberius because in order to overthrow Sejanus, the emperor needed someone with military support in Rome that was independent of the all-powerful comman¬ der of the guard. Tigellinus was to enjoy confidence of Nero, and previously of his mother, Agrippina. Only L. Faenius Rufus rose to the office thanks to the public acclaim he enjoyed while prefect of the annona. The reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty is characteristic for its frugal forms of honouring the guard commanders. There are only two forms of distin¬ guishing prefects while they held the function: by awarding the badges of senatorial dignity — praetorship or consulship. Initially, ornamenta praetoria predominated, confirmed in three cases. Later on, only ornamenta consularia were consistently awarded. It should be underlined that there is no indication that in the discussed period being awarded with ornamenta was an equiva¬ lent of senatorial office, and especially that it entitled one to enter the senate. Sejanus represents an exceptional case, since he not only became a senator SUMMARY 787 but also held ordinary consulate. This, however, was a manifestation of his completely unique position at Tiberius side. It should be noted that Macro or Burrus could not hope for such honours, although their powers and influence were similar. They had to settle for receiving merely ornamenta praetoria or consularia. The key elements which demonstrated the significance of individual pre¬ fects and the office itself was the manner of dismissal and their later fates. In general, the prefects may be divided into those whose service was posi¬ tively evaluated by the ruler, which was manifested either by keeping him in office for life (only Burrus) or by appointing to another prestigious office fol¬ lowing an honourable discharge. In such cases, the prefecture of Egypt was the only option. From the formal point of view, three prefects ended their careers in this fashion, though for the sake of precision it has to be said that in Macro s case it was but a pretext to get rid of a too influential a potentate. The pattern is also partially confirmed by the career of G. Caecina Tuscus. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of the prefects ofthat period ended their office in tragic circumstances, condemned to death or murdered on the order of the emperor, alternatively an influential personage belonging to the emperor s family (five prefects), or else was dismissed and fell out of favour (three prefects). It must be added that the latter option was not a final one, as the example of M. Arrecinus Clemens shows that despite the dismissal at least his descendants climbed the social hierarchy. Little may be said about the careers of praetorian prefects after they had left the office, because either no information is available or the prefect re¬ mained in office until natural or sudden death. The alternative to the latter was dismissal combined with the emperor s disfavour. This concerned only the prefects involved in the attempt on Caligula. The exceptional cases include L. Seius Strabo, and L. Lusius Geta, who most certainly were granted gover¬ norship of Egypt directly after discharge from prefect duties. Macro should also be counted in this group, though he never reached the province and was forced by Caligula to commit suicide. In a sense, the case of G. Caecina Tuscus is also symptomatic. Despite being on the verge of appointment, Tuscus never became a prefect, but in later years he was also sent to Egypt as a governor. There is no confirmed information on the social origins of Rufrius Crispinus who, having been honourably discharged, is certain to have retained his status or was promoted to the senatorial order. Only in the case of three prefects is the social standing of their descendants known. One should nevertheless draw attention to the fact that as regards those three, the son of one only belonged to the equestrian order, while the remaining were spoken of as members of the senatorial order. The silence of the sources in other instances may have a va¬ riety of reasons. It seems that a part of the prefects did not have legal progeny 788 PREFECŢI PRETORIO (e.g. Macro and Burrus). In turn, Sejanus was condemned to death with the entire family. Analysis of familial connections yields some information only with regard to Q. Ostorius Scapula, who was related to G. Salustius Crispus. He was also an eques, but it should be remembered that he was a close advisor of the emperor — an eminence grise of the Augustus reign. Status of the prefects in the 2nd period The second period, associated with the Year of the Four Emperors and the later reign of Vespasian and Titus was characterised by numerous experiments. In the period spanning the civil war and the later reign of Vespasian and Titus the ephemeral emperors had to choose their prefects from a fairly limited group of people. Their geographical origins are almost completely unknown except for the nominees of the Flavian faction, including a senator, M. Ar- recinus Clemens and Titus, who apart from belonging to the senatorial order was also a member of the ruling family. The only information of importance is that the list now included the first representative of the eastern provinces of the Empire, and on top ofthat, one of Jewish origin. There is no certainty whether the guard commanders appointed during the war acquired the rank of équités — this applies to Cornelius Laco, Licinius Proculus and Alfenus Varus. We may only surmise that upon nomination that were accordingly promoted within the estate system. It is also possible that there was no time to take such decisions, all the more so that the contemporary emperors lacked the censorial capacity which would have allowed them to do so. M. Arrecinus Clemens owed his appointment not so much to the social rank, but to the fa¬ milial connections with the gens Flavia and the extraordinary circumstances in times of the civil war. It should be added that a similar experiment was never repeated afterwards. Giving command of the guard to Titus was an entirely different affair and, as we may conjecture, he acted as emperor s son, the heir to the throne, not to say a co-ruler. Therefore he did not require the title of the praetorian prefect and it is not recorded in any official documents. Of all the prefects in 69-81, the most important figure is Tib. Julius Alexander, who had made a splendid equestrian career under Claudius and Nero, rising to the prefecture of Egypt, an office which so far had crowned the cursus hon¬ orum of the most distinguished équités. However, one should bear in mind that his promotion to the commander of the guard was out of the ordinary, being associated with the exceptional times of the civil war and the ending of hostilities against Jewish insurgents. Therefore, it is not typical of the en¬ tire discussed period. Still, his appointment set the direction for the future changes. Promoting the governor of Egypt to the rank of guard commander in Rome would become quite frequent, if not a norm. The appointees of Galba, Otho and Vitellius had no experience to their name, apart from the lowly function of assessor in the case of Cornelius Laco SUMMARY 789 and various officer s ranks in others. At the same time, such a choice of candi¬ dates to the praetorian prefecture shows how limited the staff pool was from which the then emperors had to choose. The only figures who were fully qual¬ ified for the post were Plotius Firmus and Tib. Julius Alexander. Entrusting praetorian prefecture to M. Arrecinus Clemens, a member of the senatorial order, represented the greatest departure from the custom. The most impor¬ tant reason was his connection with the Flavian family. The case of Titus was a similar one. The ephemeral rulers of the Year of the Four Emperors did not have suffi¬ cient time to carry out any kind of policy with respects to their guard com¬ manders. As a result, none of the prefects received any distinction while in office. It may be noted that Arrius Varus obtained ornamenta praetoria, but this took place after his dismissal, and the honour was bestowed in recogni¬ tion of his contribution for the victory of the Flavian faction in the civil war. The prefects appointed in that period outside the standard procedure were M. Arrecinus Clemens, Tib. Julius Alexander and Titus. Status of the prefects in the 3rdperiod From the standpoint of this study, the most important period in the history of the prefecture was the period referred to as the classical one, which began with the appointments made by Domitian and continuing until the death of Marcus Aurelius. It is important in view of the abundance of detailed infor¬ mation pertaining to the careers of guard commanders of the period. Those prefects did not assume their functions in the circumstances of political up¬ heaval, therefore the rulers had much more freedom in the nominations. Their decisions could reflect the model considered as an ideal one. Little information is available about the geographical origins of the prefects and about the status of their families. Only with regard to those who began their military career with ranks lower than equestrian may it be surmised that since they did not belong to the order, neither had their ancestors. Nevertheless, this approach may be misleading, and stands the test only with three figures (Ser. Sulpicius Similis, Q. Március Turbo, M. Bassaeus Rufus). In the remaining instances the sources quite consistently confirm equestrian status prior to assuming the office as well as throughout its duration. The later fates of the dismissed prefects are known only with three persons. Two prefects were promoted to the senatorial order. This might have happened in more cases, which may be inferred from the information about the status of their descendants. The available data concerns only six prefects, and senatorial rank is mentioned in each case. One should add that Domitian chose at least some of his prefects from among the members of distant family, probably in the belief that they would prove more loyal. However, nothing points to the fact that the practice was continued later. 790 PREFECŢI PRETORIO The prefects in that period were recruited among people with substan¬ tial military and administrative experience. Some were charged with extraor¬ dinary military commands, which in the normal circumstances would have been entrusted to the representatives of the senatorial class. Március Turbo was one to perform such a role before taking the office. Some prefects were in command of field armies, combining the duty with the praetorian prefec¬ ture (Cornelius Fuscus, Claudius Livianus, Furius Victorinus, and perhaps also T. Flavius Constans, M. Bassaeus Rufus, M. Macrinus Vindex). Since Hadrian, the careers of the future prefects feature command of the navy, which was a good starting point for assuming the major equestrian functions, while from Antoninus Pius onwards, the offices of heads of imperial chancery begin to perform a similar role. That was the time of the first prefect whose experience, according to Historia Augusta, was limited to the chancery (Sex. Cornelius Repentinus). It should be underlined, however, that T. Furius Victorinus and M. Bassaeus Rufus, both military men, held the office of a procurator a ra- tionibus. In short, the backgrounds were not mutually exclusive. One of the most important features of that period is appointing prefects from among the former prefects of Egypt, who had previously held the prefecture of the Vigiles or annona. It seems that Domitian was the most consistent in his staff policy. Three of his nominees had been prefects of Egypt, the previous ca¬ reer of the fourth is a subject of debate. More importantly, L.Julius Ursus and L. Laberius Maximus had held the prefecture of annona. The same pattern may be observed in the career of Ser. Sulpicius Similis, at the turn of the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. M. Bassaeus Rufus, a prefect under Marcus Aurelius, rep¬ resents a slightly different career course, with the previous prefecture of the Vigiles instead of the annona. Much the same must have applied in the case of T. Furius Victorinus, although which of the prefectures in Rome was involved is not known. It may be assumed that the career of G. Tattius Maximus would have been similar, had he not been directly promoted from the command of the Vigiles to the praetorian prefecture, without the governorship of Egypt. Most likely, this was caused by the unexpected death of M. Gavius Maximus. Apart from a number of prefects under Domitian and those who held the office during the political crisis after his murder, the majority of the guard commanders in the third period remained in office until death or were hon¬ ourably dismissed. The stability was achieved at the expense of extraordinary distinctions during their term. The practice of awarding the prefects with or¬ namenta consularia appears only during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. In the same time, the sources record that the prefects were referred to by means of the honorary title of vir eminentissimus. Meanwhile, the practice of elevating the honourably dismissed prefects to the senatorial order, usually directly to the circle of the consulares, had developed even earlier, under Domitian. Still, SUMMARY 791 it is not all too frequent; one might say that it is employed in exceptional cases. Domitian resorted to the practice in order to get rid of L. Julius Ursus, with whom he was apparently in conflict. The precedent is later used with respect to Sex. Attius Suburanus Aemilianus in Trajan s times. However, the prefects of the first years of Hadrian s reign had to content themselves with receiving ornamenta consularia after being dismissed. Status of the prefects in the 4th period There is no indication that any radical change took place in the subsequent period. Only our knowledge about the careers of the prefect in that time is more limited. Many of the contemporary appointees are obscure figures. Their previous career is a matter of conjecture, the status of the family is usually unknown. Much the same applies to the prefects of the civil war in 193-196. Only the figure of Plautianus is discussed in the sources in great detail. The situation improves after 205, when the information pertaining to prefects is more systematic. As usual, information regarding geographical origins is too insufficient to arrive at any general conclusions. Yet I do not think that in that period the issue of the place of origin played a key role in the potential nomination for the office. It may have surfaced incidentally, as it were. We know that Plautianus came from Africa, just as Septimius Severus did. Never¬ theless, these matters were not a decisive factor, unlike the family connections or confidence of the ruler. In most cases the sources provide no information as to the status of the prefect s ancestors, with the exception of Plautianus whose equestrian background is recorded. A lower social rank is mentioned with regard to P. Valerius Comazon, who held the office under Elagabalus. In some cases we may only hazard a guess that the ancestors of e.g. M. Oclatinius Adventus and M. Opellius Macrinus were situated lower than équités. Both would be examples of people who rose to the highest dignities thanks to their own merits and achievements. By and large, the information concerning the careers of the prefects-to-be denote people belonging to the equestrian or¬ der, though exceptions are in evidence. Tigidius Perennis started his career with a lower position, but attained a higher status as early as the reign of Marcus Aurelius, probably as part of the promotions of distinguished com¬ manders from the Marcomannic wars. In all likelihood, military service was the springboard to career for M. Oclatinius Adventus and P. Valerius Co¬ mazon. In that light, the first two appointees of Macrinus, Ulpius Julianus and Julianus Nestor, are interesting figures, as both originated from the cir¬ cles of officers responsible for military intelligence. However, his subsequent nominee, Julius Basilianus, was a former governor of Egypt. The estate of the incumbent prefects, when known, does not arouse any greater controversy, with the majority belonging to the equestrian order. Only Plautianus was promoted, becoming a senator and a member of the ruling family. The status 792 PREFECŢI PRETORIO of the first appointees of Macrinus is also doubtful. Nonetheless, if it is true that Julianus Nestor held the chancery office of a procurator a censibus, then his equestrian background could be accepted without greater reservations. In the discussed period, the elevation of a former prefect, and even more so of his descendants to the senatorial rank was a normal occurrence. The promo¬ tion of the prefects is confirmed in as many as six cases, and with respect the family of the prefect in three cases. It a relatively high proportion, given the fact that many commanders of the guard ended their duties as a result of execution, left the office in disgrace or were murdered. The exceptional position of Plautianus resulted in the inclusion of his daughter Plautilla into the imperial family. The tendency reached its peak when imperial power was seized by Macrinus, with the earlier emergence of Adventus as a candidate to the throne. It may be said that the praetorian prefecture in 177/180-223 went hand in hand with the imperial power, and in consequence partook in the risks associated with its exercise. Despite the shortages in the sources and the contrary suggestions in the Historia Augusta, the policy of Commodus did not depart from the practices of his father. Commodus would select his prefects from among experienced administrators and officers. One example is T. Longaeus Rufus, who was pro¬ moted to the office of the praetorian prefect directly from the governorship of Egypt. The career of L. Julius Vehilius Gallus Julianus had been a strictly military one. Septimius Severus and Caracalla also attempted to draw on the model developed previously. Plautianus had the prefecture of the Vigiles to his credit, in addtion to the merits from the civil war of 193-196. The only nov¬ elty of the period is the appointment of Aemilius Papinianus, who did not hold any military offices. In that case, the promotion was supported by the many years of managing one (or perhaps even two) departments of the imperial chancery. Still, it should be emphasized that the first precedent of the kind was the appointment of Sex. Cornelius Repentinus. As regards Papinianus, the researchers suppose that the command of the guard was preceded by the prefecture of the Vigiles, while the surviving contemporary inscriptions by no means preclude the military nature of the jurist s activities. Although it is conjectured that the praetorian prefecture was subsequently entrusted to a succession of lawyers, the fact is only confirmed in the cases of Macrinus and Ulpian. The pair of Macrinus and Adventus gives rise to the archetype of a civilised and learned jurist accompanying an uncouth soldier. It would be difficult to apply generalisation of this kind to e.g. Q. Maecius Laetus, who held the office jointly with Papinianus. A number of scholars associates the practice of entrusting praetorian prefecture to lawyers with the acquisition of a broad criminal and civil jurisdiction by that authority. Although there is one source text by Ulpian which confirms the exercise of such judiciary summary 793 capacity in Italy outside the urbica dioecesis, it is difficult to determine how long that capacity lasted, as the shortage of other source references calls the broad judiciary competences of the guard commanders into question. Draw¬ ing a parallel between the information in Ulpian and the later prerogatives of the prefects under Constantine the Great seems unwarranted. Appointing jurists for the highest offices was rather related to their membership in the consilium principis and their role in drafting legal acts or in the verdicts re¬ turned by the emperor, he practice was abandoned after 240, when even the language of the imperial documents changed. When we appraise the summary covering the period 177/180-223, there is one aspect which differs fundamentally in comparison with the previous period. The overwhelming majority of the prefects in the fourth period met a tragic end. Honourable discharge was exceptional in the extreme. It cer¬ tainly applied only in the case of P. Oclatinius Adventus and P. Valerius Comazon. The record concerning P. Taruttienus Paternus may be somewhat misleading. The circumstances were similar to those known from Macro s life — several days after the honourable dismissal the ex-prefect was mur¬ dered. Ulpius Julianus was murdered by the political adversaries of emperor Macrinus, who had appointed the prefect. Meanwhile, Ulpian was murdered as a result of the revolt of mutinous soldiery. In several cases the manner in which prefect left the office remains unknown. The sources corroborate the conferment of ornamenta consularia only with regard to two instances, the same may be surmised in four other cases. Usually, the prefects are referred to as vir eminemtissimus, and only in two cases may it be stated that the title of vir clarissimus was employed to denote prefects. During that period, a highly exceptional status was attained by Plautianus, who entered the circles of the ruling family and whose daughter married emperor Caracalla. He had ob¬ tained ornamenta consularia either in the first years of his term in office or even before taking the prefecture. At any rate, the ordinary consulate he held later is consistently given in the sources as the second one. An event without any precedent was the elevation of Macrinus — an in¬ cumbent prefect — to the imperial throne after the death of Caracalla. It should be underlined that the first nominee of the soldiers was M. Ocla¬ tinius Adventus, who declined the nomination on the grounds of advanced age. This shows that in the opinion of the Roman army, including officers and commanders of the senatorial class, praetorian prefects were naturally suited for assuming the highest power. The fact that the army opted for the two prefects, most likely in the sequence corresponding with their hierarchy, indicates that it was not the candidate s personality that counted but the of¬ fice they held at the time. Since only few prefects survived their dismissal, the manner of honouring the former prefects is hardly a subject for consideration. 794 PREFECŢI PRETORIO A certain consistency may be observed only during the reign of Caracalla and Macrinus, who continued the former s practice of rewarding ex-prefects with inclusion into the senatorial class by conferring consulship. We know that the practice was employed by Heliogabalus with regard to P. Valerius Comazon, who confirmed his senatorial rank by being the prefect of the city of Rome three times. At the same time, the sources confirm that damnatio memoriae was proclaimed in as many as four cases. Status of the prefects in the 5th period The years 223-282 have the most scant coverage in the sources, which natu¬ rally has a bearing on the assessment of experience of the appointed prefects. Nevertheless, one may venture a statement that the tendency observed in the previous years develops. With respect to the geographical origins of the pre¬ fects or the social status of their families, our knowledge is very limited. As regards the prefects themselves, they were mostly équités, although sources tend to be imprecise on that issue. It is a period when honorary titles would lose their value and there is no certainty that prefects called clarissimi viri be¬ longed to the senatorial class. Also, it is a time when équités, who frequently hold identical titles, are increasingly put in charge of the offices formerly attributed to senators. The only certain example of entrusting the office of prefect to the representative of the senatorial order is that of M. Annius Flo- rianus. This, however, did not result from any desire to reform the office, but stemmed from the simple fact that the emperor appointed his own brother, a man he could trust. It was perhaps a remote reference to the role fulfilled by Titus during Vespasian s reign. The association of the praetorian prefecture and imperial authority reached its apogee. The careers of prefects holding office before 250 be can described in greater detail only in three cases. The prefecture of Egypt preceding the command of the guard in the cases of M. Aedinius Julianus and L. Domitius Honoratus is particularly expressive of the fact that during the reign of Alexander Severus the previous model was drawn upon. Also, the career of G. Furius Sabinius Aquila Time sitheus, and probably those of his successors, G. Julius Priscus and M. Julius Philippus, seem to point that way. The situation appears to change in the second half of the 3rd century, when the information relating to the guard commanders shows them only in their military surroundings. Although two prefects of that period (Petronius Taurus Volusianus and Julius Placidianus) had also held the prefecture of the Vigiles, it has to be remembered that the office, just as the praetorian prefecture, was frequently used at the time to govern the provinces. During the deepest crisis of the state in the 3rd century, and especially after the reform of Gallienus, which removed senators from commanding the army, praetorian prefects were most often employed as field commanders. On the one hand, it was easier for the prefect to the throne by summary 795 the will of the assembled soldiery, but on the other the daily performance of judicial duties on the territory of Italy was severely hampered. There is no information about the distinctions awarded to prefects at the time. M. Julius Philippus, M. Annius Florianus and M. Aurelius Carus as¬ cended the imperial throne, and thus became members of the senatorial class. We may surmise that the crisis and the sustained military threat favoured the increase of the significance and prerogatives of the praetorian prefects, who were perceived as persons predestined to imperial rule. The competences of the prefects The available information permits us to distinguish four areas of activities and interests of the guard commanders. The first encompassed prerogatives of military nature, which is obvious given the origin of the office and its basic tasks. The second area comprised various policing and administrative duties, very frequently associated with the participation of the guard and the prefect himself in the work of the imperial tribunal. The third area of competences was concerned with political activity and supporting the emperor in this field. The fourth area is the participation in the judiciary, when prefect delivered verdicts in his own name, as opposed to collaborating with the ruler as the supreme judge. The primary and the natural function of the prefects was commanding the praetorian guard. In the respect, the sources remain in accord. Usually, the texts pertain to the Julio-Claudian period and the Year of the Four Emperors. Later on, the matter is mentioned less and less frequently. It is difficult to de¬ termine the reasons behind it. In any case, it is a fact that most information on ist century AD is due to Tacitus, and beyond his account no more is available. Perhaps in the subsequent decades the prefects command of the guard was so obvious that there was no need to emphasize it. What is more, beginning with the 2nd century, the prefects appear more and more often in contexts other than military, therefore the information that the antique writers and readers considered more interesting took precedence over the commonplace fact of leading the guard. An issue which is associated with the military nature of the praetorian pre¬ fecture is the validity of the thesis of Cassius Dio, who claimed that the pre¬ fects were in charge of all military detachments in Italy, apart from those who had a commander designated from among the senators. From the collected material it follows that the thesis is borne out only with regard to numerus équités singulares Augusti, and thus may also refer to the Germani corporis custodes. However, in the latter case any direct confirmation of the fact is lack¬ ing. As far as the other units of the Rome s garrison are concerned, praetorian prefects are mentioned sporadically and always as a result of extraordinary PRAFECTI PRETORIO circumstances. One may have the impression that Dio s thesis was a political postulate rather than a reflection of the actual state of affairs. In this fashion, the author wanted to curb the designs of the prefects to reach for a much broader military power, which encroached upon the sphere reserved for the members of the senatorial class. After all, praetorian prefects were used as field commanders relatively early, leading armies consisting of legions and appropriate contingent of the auxiliaries. We do not know precisely when the idea was conceived. It had little chance of realisation during the reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, as the armed conflicts were few and far between. Its first traces appear in the mission of Sejanus, who was sent in the company of Drusus the Younger to the Danube to quell the rebellion of the legions stationed there. The situation changed diametrically in the Year of the Four Emperors, when primarily Otho, then Vitellius as well, employed prefects of the praetorium as typical, high-ranking field commanders. In the subsequent years, the examples from the civil war are emulated. First of all, Cornelius Fuscus dies in a spectacular defeat in the clashes with the Dacians. During Tra¬ jan s wars, the role of a military commander would fall to Claudius Livianus. We may surmise that in the peaceful decades to follow, when Hadrian and Antoninus Pius were in power, military services of the guard commanders were in abeyance, as they were not required. However, with the onset of the Marcomannic wars, the prefects lead great armies again. In the later periods, the sources do not discuss the strictly military occupations of the prefects. Only in the 3rd century, during the greatest crisis of the Roman state, all men¬ tions about the guard commanders are concerned with that issue. Following the reform of Gallienus, which gave the exclusive command of the Roman army to the équités, the praetorian prefecture became a military office of the highest rank. The military aspect of the prefects activities is strongly associated with their role as guardians of the emperor s safety. For this reason, they would al¬ ways accompany the ruler. At times, one has the impression that they dogged his footsteps. This is probably the source of confidence which gave many pre¬ fects extraordinary influence and importance. This is also where the convic¬ tion of their military experience and prowess may have sprung from, since at least one of the prefects would always accompany the emperor who took command in the war. Thus the prefect becomes one of the principal advisors on the imperial war council. Moreover, he is often the executor of the em¬ peror s orders or the one who passes them on to the relevant officers. Such arrangement is just a step away from assuming actual command, especially if the prefect enjoyed considerable authority in the matters of warfare while the ruler was young and inexperienced. It should also be borne in mind that in the times of peace, the emperor s travels were organised in the military summary 797 fashion, and the emperor was accompanied by a numerous retinue compris¬ ing members of his family, friends, many officials as well as a military escort. In addition to being responsible for the safety of the emperor, the praeto¬ rian prefect had to organise the journey and probably ensure the supply of provisions. This was a substantial logistical challenge. If the main duty of the commander of the guard was to ensure the safety of the emperor and protect his position and authority, it follows naturally that the prefects had to have the prerogatives which would facilitate the task. It should be stressed that the task may have been carried out in a variety of ways, and the actual practice may have differed depending on the style of the prefect and the views of the ruler concerned. The task of combating the opposition was in part included in the duties of the prefect by virtue of his service for the imperial tribunal. Since Sejanus, the role or the prefect in this matter was a weighty one. It was he who conducted investigations in political trials. His undercover agents, spies and political informers, recruited chiefly from among the guards, collected information on suspicious activi¬ ties. In the main, this applied to the power elites, including the emperor s family. Throughout the procedure, the prefect would not be a passive party, though undoubtedly he accepted charges formulated by professional delators and outsiders, as demonstrated in the description of the trial of Apollonius of Ty ana. The prefect would interrogate the accused, often using torture, and question the witnesses. The protocols of interrogation would be presented to the emperor. It was the prefect who decided whether to arrest the accused, who controlled the prisons and the conditions therein. Although the verdict was issued by the emperor or a competent court, the prefect was able to exert influence on its tenor. As the prefect was involved in the emperor s judicial activities, he was also responsible for the enforcement of imperial verdicts, es¬ pecially those in which death penalty was pronounced. Although the prefect would seldom take part in the executions, the example of Rufrius Crispinus from the times of Claudius shows that he certainly oversaw its delivery. Given their military, policing and administrative duties, the prefects en¬ tered the political sphere. One could say that it was a natural scope for their activities, because exercising military command as well as prosecuting oppo¬ sition possessed that very dimension. His involvement in combating opposi¬ tion and the ceaseless physical presence at the ruler s side made each prefect the emperor s natural ally. The prefect became an imperial advisor, frequently the most important counsellor, sometimes event the only one. The office held by Sejanus shows the full spectrum of opportunities available to the prefect, and in later periods the experiences find their continuation. The only differ¬ ence was whether the prefect (or prefects) were the sole, or at least the lead¬ ing advisors, or were accompanied by many others, and ranked among the 798 PREFECŢI PRETORIO less important ones. The important role of the prefects must have been made legitimate, by means of enrolling them in the consilium principis, a councü which supported the ruler in the decision-making process. Let us add that the decisions concerned various areas, from private life, through political and military issues to the judiciary. The word of the prefect must have carried a substantial weight in those matters, if only due to the fact that because of his duties he participated actively in the making of internal policies, in the defence of the frontiers, as well as in internal security and the work of the imperial tribunal, and hence in the entire justice system. How great a part of the imperial competences ended up in the hands of the guard commander (or commanders) depended on the personality of the ruler and the temperament of the prefect. It seems that the only method to weaken their influence was to divide the office between two persons, but also to diffuse the responsibility for the emperor s decisions among a greater num¬ ber of advisors. This was the approach of the emperors from the Antonine dynasty, which allowed them to leave the same person in office for years on end. Only Commodus decided to abandon that practice. The example of Sejanus was a lesson that a prefect left unchecked may seize the prerogatives of the emperor and become dangerous in the extreme. The takeover of the prerogatives and actual rule was at times desired when the ruler was young, inexperienced or unprepared for exercising power. The practice invariably showed that sooner or later this kind of dependency lead to the emancipation of power, which resulted in the prefect s loss of influence, often accompanied by his execution. In the public opinion, prefect represented the emperor and his authority, therefore every decision of the guard commander bore the token of the ruler s will. Most often such decisions were also issued on emperor s behalf. Let us add that the prefects governed the their master s surroundings, admitted the supplicants to the emperor s presence while all correspondence addressed to the latter went through their hands. Therefore the antique his¬ torians had little information about their mutual relations. The political significance of the praetorian prefects was manifested in full in times of crisis and uncertainty, and the changes on the throne were always moments of turmoil. It is no accident that many prefects are mentioned in the sources either as guarantors ensuring safe transfer of power or, on the contrary, as those who through conspiracy had led (or had intended to lead) to the death of the emperor. The prefect must have had a major role in the scheme since he possessed direct access to the emperor, but more importantly, was capable of ensuring the support of the guards for the new candidate to the throne. During the reign of the Antonines, one even observes a practice of appointing transitional prefects, or those who were supposed to ensure unproblematic power takeover. Traces of such solution may be found towards summary 799 the end of Claudius reign, when Burrus played a similar role. Yet it is best demonstrated when Hadrian s rule was drawing to a close, and the ailing emperor forced Március Turbo, his reliable and long-standing commander of the guard, to resign in order to appoint two new prefects. As may be surmised, this was agreed with Antoninus Pius. The judiciary competences of the prefects is one of the issues we know very little about. In the Speech of Maecenas, Dio does not mention any prerogatives ofthat kind. He only remarks that the prefects should have the right to punish their soldiers, but not a word is said about either criminal or civil jurisdiction of the first or second instance. What is more, Dio makes exceptions to the competences he describes, whereby the centurions and tribunes of the guard are not subject to the jurisdiction of the prefects. It is a very interesting testi¬ mony, as it contradicts many earlier and contemporary sources, which speak of the prefect s involvement in the broadly understood justice system. These duties were a logical aftermath of the basic roles of prefects and the guard they were in charge of, namely the protection of the emperor. They were also related to the part they played in the jurisdiction exercised by the ruler. Prae¬ torian prefects were always within the framework of the broadly understood judiciary. Ulpian mentions that they were given autonomous jurisdiction in criminal and civil matter on the territory of Italy with the exception of Rome and the area in a 100-mile radius around the city. Such a reform might have taken place under Septimius Severus, simultaneously with a similar reform of the office of the prefect of Rome. The competences of both tribunals were complementary, differing only in the territorial extent of their jurisdiction. However, even in the 3rd century, when the prefect is certain to have exer¬ cised such jurisdiction, the fact is not all too often mentioned in the sources. It is probable that reducing the judiciary activities of the praetorian prefects to adjudicating in trials involving inhabitants of the towns of Italy was neither a source of accolades nor did it add substantially to their prerogatives. It may even have been a burden to an official who was occupied with the policies of the whole empire, particularly in the most profound crisis of the 3rd century, when prefects were ever more often employed in military action or governed extensive areas of the state. Translated by Szymon Nowak Bayerische Staatsb bÜotheV Μ Γ; η с π 3 л
any_adam_object	1
author	Ruciński, Sebastian
author_facet	Ruciński, Sebastian
author_role	aut
author_sort	Ruciński, Sebastian
author_variant	s r sr
building	Verbundindex
bvnumber	BV041344307
ctrlnum	(OCoLC)879010898 (DE-599)BVBBV041344307
era	Geschichte 2 v.Chr. - 282 gnd
era_facet	Geschichte 2 v.Chr. - 282
format	Book
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01905nam a2200409 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV041344307</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20140604 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">131007s2013 a\|\|\| \|\|\|\| 00\|\|\| pol d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788370969028</subfield><subfield code="9">978-83-7096-902-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)879010898</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV041344307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">pol</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,12</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ruciński, Sebastian</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Praefecti praetorio</subfield><subfield code="b">dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr.</subfield><subfield code="c">Sebastian Ruciński</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="246" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Præfecti prætorio</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Bydgoszcz</subfield><subfield code="b">Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego</subfield><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">799 s.</subfield><subfield code="b">il. (w tym kolor.). - Ill.</subfield><subfield code="c">25 cm</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Praefecti praetorium</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="610" ind1="2" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Römisches Reich</subfield><subfield code="b">Prätorianer</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4076781-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 2 v.Chr. - 282</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Römisches Reich</subfield><subfield code="b">Prätorianer</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4076781-4</subfield><subfield code="D">b</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 2 v.Chr. - 282</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026793022&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026793022&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-026793022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">355.009</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0901</subfield><subfield code="g">37</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">355.009</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0901</subfield><subfield code="g">438</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
id	DE-604.BV041344307
illustrated	Illustrated
indexdate	2024-07-10T00:54:31Z
institution	BVB
isbn	9788370969028
language	Polish
oai_aleph_id	oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-026793022
oclc_num	879010898
open_access_boolean
owner	DE-12
owner_facet	DE-12
physical	799 s. il. (w tym kolor.). - Ill. 25 cm
publishDate	2013
publishDateSearch	2013
publishDateSort	2013
publisher	Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego
record_format	marc
spelling	Ruciński, Sebastian Verfasser aut Praefecti praetorio dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr. Sebastian Ruciński Præfecti prætorio Bydgoszcz Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego 2013 799 s. il. (w tym kolor.). - Ill. 25 cm txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Praefecti praetorium Römisches Reich Prätorianer (DE-588)4076781-4 gnd rswk-swf Geschichte 2 v.Chr. - 282 gnd rswk-swf Römisches Reich Prätorianer (DE-588)4076781-4 b Geschichte 2 v.Chr. - 282 z DE-604 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026793022&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026793022&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis
spellingShingle	Ruciński, Sebastian Praefecti praetorio dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr. Römisches Reich Prätorianer (DE-588)4076781-4 gnd
subject_GND	(DE-588)4076781-4
title	Praefecti praetorio dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr.
title_alt	Præfecti prætorio
title_auth	Praefecti praetorio dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr.
title_exact_search	Praefecti praetorio dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr.
title_full	Praefecti praetorio dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr. Sebastian Ruciński
title_fullStr	Praefecti praetorio dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr. Sebastian Ruciński
title_full_unstemmed	Praefecti praetorio dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr. Sebastian Ruciński
title_short	Praefecti praetorio
title_sort	praefecti praetorio dowodcy gwardii pretorianskiej od 2 roku przed chr do 282 roku po chr
title_sub	dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282 roku po Chr.
topic	Römisches Reich Prätorianer (DE-588)4076781-4 gnd
topic_facet	Römisches Reich Prätorianer
url	http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026793022&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026793022&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA
work_keys_str_mv	AT rucinskisebastian praefectipraetoriodowodcygwardiipretorianskiejod2rokuprzedchrdo282rokupochr AT rucinskisebastian præfectiprætorio

Holdings

There is no print copy available.

Interlibrary loan Place Request Caution: Not in THWS collection! Indexes

MARC

Record in the Search Index

There is no print copy available.

Similar Items