No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The history of Ammianus Marcellinus states that Constantius II (337–61) renamed the Pontic diocese Pietas, in honour of his second wife, Aurelia Eusebia (353–60?). pietas refers to sacred dutiful conduct toward all, specifically gods, state, and family. Constantius’ purpose in renaming the diocese poses an interesting question because it holds an important key to understanding the role Eusebia played in supporting her husband's position as emperor. In other words, what kind of part could an empress play in the Late Empire? Constantius may indeed have been honouring his wife. Why, however, would he honour her so? Is pietas just a play on the empress's name, which means ‘piety’ in Greek, or is there a deeper meaning? A search of late Imperial evidence on this woman and etymology on this word is needed.
1 Amm. Marc. 17.7.6. See also A. H. M. Jones, PLRE 1, 300.
2 See Jones (n. 1), 895 on Theodora.
3 Kent, J., Roman Imperial Coinage 7 (London, 1981), 294Google Scholar and Cohen, H., Description historique des Monnaies frappés sous I'Empire romain (Paris, 1955), 463.Google Scholar
4 Apparently the urban folk living in the Roman East, particularly in Mesopotamia, thought well of Constantius’ efforts to defend the frontier in spite of his defeats. Constantius had ruled this region for a lengthy period and his personal attention here contrasts with his refusal to personally oversee the restoration of the Rhine frontier and his sending Caesar Julian. See Amm. Marc. 15.8.1, 20.11.21, and 25.9.3.
5 Eusebia and the courtiers are the driving force in both of these passages, Constantius being swayed one way then another. This is typical of Ammianus’ opinion of the emperor and is highly misleading. See Amm. Marc. 15.2.8, 15.8.2–3. For further discussion, see Tougher, S., ‘The advocacy of an empress: Julian and Eusebia’, CQ 48 (1998), 595–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Amm. Marc. 21.6.4. The year of Eusebia's death cannot be determined with certainty. Constantius remarried in 361 to Faustina.
7 Julian, Or. 3, 118B–C and 121B–C, and Ep. ad Alh. 273A–D. See also Aujoulat, N., ‘Eusebie, Hélene et Julien I. Le témoignage de Julien’, Byzantion 58 (1983), 79–81Google Scholar and 92–3. Aujoulat clearly believes that while Julian is painting a literary portrait of the empress, his sentiments are genuine. Eusebia's Macedonian birth and generous treatment of Julian translate into esteem for the philosopher. This accords well with Julian's own Hellenism. Eusebia is not merely pitying him out of compassion but showing respect in her aid.
8 Amm. Marc. 16.10.18–19. That Eusebia was capable and willing to carry out these acts has not been doubted. See also Aujoulat, , ‘Eusebie, Hélene et Julien II. Le témoignage des historiens’, Byzantion 58 (1983), 438Google Scholar; Tougher (n. 5); Paschoud, F., Zosime. Histoire Nouvelle (Paris, 1979), 62.Google Scholar
9 Zosimus 3.1.
10 Constantius did in fact claim credit for Julian's victory at Argentoratum. See Amm. Marc. 16.12.70.
11 The relationship between the younger Pliny and his Calpurnia demonstrate, for example, the kind of devotion and service that could be expected of a young Roman wife to her husband's public affairs. See Garnsey, P., Sailer, R., The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (Berkeley, 1987), 130–6.Google Scholar Eusebia's political and religious outlook would have been dominated by her older husband. For a discussion on Eusebia's age see Aujoulat (n. 7), 85–6.
12 Julian, Ep. ad Ath. 278A and Amm. Marc. 15.8.1–12. Using Julian in Gaul may also have been an attempt to revive family prestige, if we may believe Zosimus’ assertion that Constantius bribed the Germans to attack in order to distract Magnentius. See Zosimus 2.53. Considering how often Constantius campaigned on the Eastern and Danube frontiers, his decision, as recorded in Ammianus, not to go personally to Gaul because of its remoteness seems false.
13 Amm. Marc. 14.9.11.
14 On Gaudentius and Florentius, see Amm. Marc. 16.12.14, 17.3.2, and 17.9.7. Gaudentius was an agens used to spy on Julian; Florentius was praetorian prefect for the Gauls. He and Julian had frequent disagreements on administrative issues.