“her pride was swollen beyond measure; she was a Fury in mortal form, incessantly adding fuel to her husband's rage, and as thirsty for human blood as he”
Ammianus XIV.1.2
The peculiarities of the usurpation of Vetranio are not solely focused on its peaceful end and aftermath. At its very outset, there was a major presence at the side of Vetranio, who may have influenced the situation. This was Constantina (The sources variously record her name as ‘Constantina’, ‘Constantia’ and even ‘Constantiana’; she would also later become known as St. Constance/Costanza), daughter of Constantine the Great and sister of Constantius and Constans, at the court of Vetranio. Constantina had already played a significant role in the dynastic politics of the Constantinian dynasty. She had been married to Hannibalianus in 335, who had been set up by Constantine to be Rex Regum et Ponticarum Gentium, ‘King of the Kings and of the Pontic Peoples’, while Constantina herself was elevated to Augusta (Ammianus XIV.1.2). However, after Hannibalianus had been a victim of the imperial purge in the wake of Constantine’s demise in 337, Constantina disappears from the surviving source record. This is not to say that she retreated from public life; it is just that her movements and actions are not recorded throughout the next 15 years. When she does appear again though, it is when she is encouraging Vetranio to usurp the imperial title in the face of Magnentius’ advance into Illyricum. She may even have played a significant role in Vetranio’s investiture, presenting him with an imperial purple robe (Chron. Pasch. 291C-D).
Attempting to ascertain Constantina’s motives for encouraging the elderly Vetranio to claim imperial power are beset by the paucity of the sources for 350 and when we then turn to other parts of her life to perhaps find some information that might help build a picture of any such motive, we are faced with the rather traditional poor reception of women in positions of authority. Indeed, could it be that the very notion of her influencing a seemingly loyal general to usurp the imperial title was in itself an example of that traditional bias in action? In her role as wife to Gallus Caesar in 351-354, Constantina is described as having a cruel, prideful and violent nature and encouraged her husband to be ruthless and to overstep the boundaries of power he had been given by Constantius (Ammianus XIV.1.2, 3.8, 7.4, 9.3, 11.22; Philostorgius III.28; Zonaras XIII.9.10.14), but is this any different to other members of her family? When they felt that they or their imperial dignity were under threat, the likes of Constantine I, Constantine II and Constantius II showed streaks of ruthlessness which came in various shades of pragmatism and cruelty.
If the idea that Constantina urged Vetranio to usurp the imperial title was for her general protection, it might be asked where she had been immediately prior. Her appearance at the side of Vetranio makes it likely (although not certain) that Constantina was somewhere in Europe at the usurpation of Magnentius, especially if she fled east from his advance to the court of the Illyrian magister peditum. Unfortunately, the holes in the historical source material include any mention of where she might have been before appearing as Vetranio’s adviser. The lack of biographical data also does not help. Constantina’s birthplace is unknown and it is difficult to extrapolate any real suggestion for it as her birthdate can only be narrowed down to perhaps sometime between late 307 and early 317 (Philostorgius III.22 has Constantina as Constantius II’s eldest sister). This was a period where Constantine and, to some extent, Fausta were venturing all across the western and central provinces. Constantine himself was back in Britain not long after his marriage to Fausta in 307, various parts of Gaul throughout 308-312, Italy in 312-313, Croatia in c.314, Thrace in 316, while Constantine II was born in Arles in Gaul in 316, while Constantius II was then born at Sirmium in 317. This is only a snippet of the imperial couple’s European roving during the decade of 307-317 and the Constantinian dynasty as a whole had put down considerable roots all across the empire’s European provinces, so there were plenty of centres of imperial support for her to have been living in.
If there is any kernel of truth to the accusation that she was hungry for power, then it might be expected that Constantina established herself in an imperial palace of some Constantinian connection; however, this would not narrow things all that much. The Third Century Crisis and the Tetrarchy had multiplied the number of imperial residences and therefore palaces, within the European provinces: Trier, Milan, Rome, Sirmium, Salona, Thessalonica and Constantinople. Some of these had considerable Constantinian connections. Trier had been a base for several Constantinian emperors already; there was a Constantinian imperial palace in Sirmium, where Constantius II had been born and raised and had been a base for Constans early in his reign; the latter had also used Thessalonica as a base for a time (CTh XI.1.4; 7.8).
However, it is perhaps the two main Roman capitals that seem the most attractive. While it is possible that much of her connection to the city might be medieval invention, Constantina herself may have had some close affinity with Rome. Her father had had her mausoleum begun near the city on the Via Nomentana before his death. She would be buried there and her magnificent porphyry sarcophagus is now in the Vatican Museum. The mausoleum would later become the church of Santa Costanza, after Constantina was elevated to sainthood, in almost direct contravention of her supposed character. The revolt of Nepotianus in Rome in early 350 also demonstrated the continued Constantinian involvement in the Eternal City. There would have been time for word of Constans’ murder to reach Rome by late January and for Constantina to then move east before Magnentius’ takeover of the city by 27 February, and persuade Vetranio to stand up to the western usurper by 1 March.
If there was some truth behind her actively insinuating herself into imperial politics in 350, rather than being swept up in events, it could be that she arrived at the court of Vetranio from a different direction: from Constantinople. The new imperial capital is the last place Constantina can be credibly (if not actually) situated before her long absence in the sources after 337. Her first husband Hannibalianus had been in the capital in 337 (where he met his demise; Zosimus III.40.3; Julian, Ep. ad Ath. 270C), so it is possible that she might have been there at that time too, quite likely linked to the funeral of her father, Constantine I, early in the year. While there is a 13-year gap between this last credible location and her appearance beside Vetranio, the imperial capital does present an attractive base for Constantina to establish herself. As it soon became clear that none of her brothers were going to spend any time in the ‘city of Constantine,’ [There is no indication that either Constantine II or Constans visited the capital after their elevation to Augustus on 9 September 337 (and not much before then either). Even Constantius II, in whose territory Constantinople was situated, is only recorded as visiting the city up to three times throughout the 340s – Libanius, Or. 59.94–97 and Socrates, HE II.13.7 on Constantius travelling to Constantinople to expel the bishop Paul in early 342; Klein (1977), 74 n.179 suggests that Constantius was in Constantinople at the time of the Council of Serdica, dated to autumn 343; Barnes (1993), 71 n.2 on the arguments over the date of the Council of Serdica; CTh XII.2.1 and XV.1.6 were issued by Constantius in the capital on 3 October 349; Barnes (1993), App. 8.] She would have been the ranking Constantinian. Constantina appearing as a ‘ruling’ Augusta in Constantinople (or Rome for that matter), resident in the imperial palace, could have fuelled some of the negative press she received.
Rather than a more general personal protection, Constantina’s interjection with Vetranio may have been to protect her own considerable imperial position. Being ‘born in the purple’ and with 15 years as an Augusta, Constantina would certainly have been used to being imperial and not wanted to risk giving that up. Her backing of Vetranio might not just demonstrate a wish to protect her position, but perhaps to even increase her standing by becoming a kingmaker in her own right. The problem with such a proposal is that if Constantina was such a prominent player in the regime of Vetranio, the sources do not really record it. She might have encouraged him to usurp the imperial title and written to Constantius about the developments in the Balkans with regard to Vetranio and Magnentius, but beyond that there is no obvious role for her as the power behind Vetranio’s throne. If she had any notions of elevating her position further and striking out on her own, it might be expected that she would have married Vetranio to lend him imperial legitimacy and establish herself as an ‘ruling’ Augusta. But there is no hint of this. Indeed, the only person she was proposed to marry at this time was Magnentius, a proposal that Constantius denied (Petrus Patricius fr.16; could Constantina have made it known that she did not fancy being married off to the ‘barbaric’ brother-killer?)
If you really wanted to delve into conspiracy theories over Constantina’s seeming desire to be a kingmaker, it would be of interest to see that both of the men she reputedly prompted to assume imperial power not granted to them were in opposition to Constantius II. As the man ultimately responsible for the murder of her first husband, Hannibalianus (Burgess (2008)), could Constantina have had a deep-seat hatred for her brother? Could her roles in the actions of Vetranio and Gallus have been in revenge for Constantius’ instigation of the murder of Hannibalianus and, therefore, the removal of her regal position?
Of course, this is considerable overreach and playing into the anti-female bias of the historical record. The likelihood is that on both occasions – Vetranio and Gallus, she was merely doing what she thought was needed to defend the imperial position of her family. Gallus seems to have faced opposition in the east, which needed a firm response, while Magnentius had already done away with one of her brothers and was threatening to sweep through the Balkans, which would have possibly culminated in the capture of Constantinople. Had the western usurper achieved such a feat, gaining the support of the Illyrian field army, access to Balkan recruiting power and the political spectacle of the new imperial capital, Magnentius may have posed too great a menace for Constantius to repel.
That Constantina did act in the interests of her family and not of her own accord is suggested by her not being relegated from the corridors of imperial power in its aftermath – she was married to Gallus within months, which she is unlikely to have been had she been perceived to have played independent kingmaker in Illyricum. It could be argued that Constantius required her imperial blood not only to keep tabs on Gallus, but also potentially to carry on the imperial line as Constantius himself had yet to produce an heir (Julian, Ep. ad Ath. 272D would have it that the union between Gallus and Constantina produced a daughter, but no other sources corroborate this), but Constantius had already (and would again) proven capable of eliminating members of his family even when the Constantinian bloodline was lacking security.
In Part III, we will try to sum up what might have happened between Vetranio, Constantina, Constantius and Magnentius...
For Part I, https://ptcrawford.wixsite.com/blogographer/post/the-curious-case-of-vetranio-part-i-regional-usurpation
Bibliography
Barnes, T.D. Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. London (1993)
Bleckmann, B. ‘Constantia, Vetranio, und Gallus Caesar,’ Chiron 24 (1994), 29-68
Blockley, R.C. ‘Constantius Gallus and Julian as Caesars of Constantius II’, Latomus 31 (1972) 431-468
Burgess, R. ‘The Summer of Blood: The “Great Massacre” of 337 and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine’, DOP 62 (2008), 5-51
Crawford, P.T. Constantius II: Usurpers, Eunuchs and the Antichrist. Barnsley (2016)
Drinkwater, J.F. ‘The Revolt and Ethnicity of the usurper Magnentius (350-353) and the Rebellion of Vetranio (350)’, Chiron 30 (2000) 131-159
Klein, R. Constantius II und die Christliche Kirche. Darmstadt (1977)
Šašel, J. ‘The Struggle between Magnentius and Constantius II for Italy and Illyricum,’ Živa Antika 21 (1971), 205-216
Comments