Provenance and location

Ancient city: Roma
Modern city: Rome (Italy)
Province: Urbs
Diocese: Italiciana
Regional prefecture: Italia Illyricum Africa
Provenance: Rome, Trajan’s Forum, found in 1930/1933
Current location: Rome, Trajan’s Forum, deposit of the Basilica Ulpia, FT 78
Ancient location: public space

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Honorary inscription for the praet. prefect Fl. Taurus by the emperors Valentinian I and Valens

Latin text

Critical edition

Edition based on CIL 06, 41336.

Translations

English

“[...] and tested equally for his determination, to Taurus, of clarissimus rank, count of the first order, quaestor in the sacred Palace with patrician dignity, praetorian prefect for Italy and Africa, our masters Valentinian and Valens, Victorious and Triumphant always Augusti, ordered that the gilded statue, which with the approval of the most ample Senate had long deserved, be restored for the perpetual memory of this praiseworthy man.”

French

“[...] et éprouvé également pour son équilibre, au clarissime Taurus, comte de premier ordre, questeur dans le palais sacré avec la dignité patricice, préfet du prétoire pour l'Italie et l'Afrique, nos seigneurs Valentinien et Valens, Vainqueurs et Triomphateurs toujours Augustes, ont ordonné que la statue d'or, qui avec l'approbation de l’amplissime Sénat il avait mérité depuis longtemps, soit restaurée pour la mémoire perpétuelle de cet homme louable.”

Italian

“[...] e fermezza egualmente sperimentata, al chiarissimo Taurus, conte del primo ordine, questore nel sacro palazzo con dignità patrizia, prefetto del pretorio per l'Italia e l'Africa, i nostri signori Valentiniano e Valens, Vincitori e Trionfatori, sempre Augusti, ordinarono che la statua d’oro, la quale con l'approvazione dell’amplissimo Senato già da tempo aveva meritato, fosse ripristinata per la perpetua memoria di quest’uomo lodevole.”

The inscription and its prefects: critical commentary, updating, overviews

This marble base, framed by an elegant moulding, lacks its upper half and appears slightly damaged on the lower moulding; it is also visibly damaged on the back (see LSA 404).

The statue base was found in the early 1930's in Trajan’s Forum in Rome. The inscription celebrates the dedication of a gilded statue to the praetorian prefect Flavius Taurus at the behest of the emperors Valentinian and Valens, who ordered the relocation of a monument in Trajan’s Forum that had been removed a few years earlier, but not before the end of 361 AD. In 4th Century, other monuments were put up by the emperors to their praetorian prefects at Rome in this very prestigious Forum (see PPRET 45, PPRET 48, PPRET 51, PPRET 54, PPRET 62, PPRET 93, PPRET 98; about the inscribed monuments in this Forum in Late Antiquity cf. Bauer 1996, pp. 409-412; Niquet 2000, pp. 18-20, 80-86, 230-232; Chenault 2012, pp. 130-131). For a praetorian prefect in this period, having a gilded bronze statue erected in his honour in such a prestigious public space in the capital city was a great distinction indeed (for records of such gilded statues – sub auro, inaurata, auro condecorata – see PPRET 27, PPRET 28, PPRET 47, PPRET 48, PPRET 51). The monuments in honour of the praetorian prefects that were removed and then reinstated in public spaces show the importance of these high functionaries, their career and office in the emperors' interpretation of the contemporary history (for inscriptions after rehabilitation see PPRET 48, PPRET 91, PPRET 93). For all these aspects the case of Taurus is significant.

The first monument in honour of the prefect Taurus was erected in Trajan's forum by Constantius II and with the approval of the Senate of Rome (ll. 9-10). But Taurus did not accept Julian's elevation to Augustus in 360/361 AD: he was tried and his monument in Trajan’s Forum removed. In 361 AD Taurus was still praetorian prefect of Italy and Africa (below) and held the consulate (CLRE, pp. 256-257). Such an illustrious appointment is unaccountably omitted in our inscription. This suggests that the monument to Taurus, commissioned by Constantius II, had already been erected in Trajan's Forum some time before the end of 360 AD. In February 360 AD, Julian was acclaimed Augustus by his troops in Gaul and Taurus took Constantius’ side. Surprised by Julian’s sudden march East in the Summer 361 AD, the prefect of Italy and Africa hurriedly abandoned his post and fled to Illyricum, where he resided with the other trusted praetorian prefect Florentius (PLRE I, p. 365). Together they retreated to Constantinople and the safety of Constantius’ court (Art. Pass. 19). Shortly after Constantius II died (on November 3^rd), Taurus was tried by the tribunal of Chalcedon and exiled to Vercelli, whereupon Julian passed the order to dismiss Constantius’ former dignitaries (Amm. 22, 03, 04).

His exile probably ended some months after June 363 AD when Julian died. Valentinian I and Valens later rehabilitated him. Indeed, perhaps as a sign of admiration for the loyalty that Taurus had showed towards Constantius II, and perhaps due to pressure from the Senate of Rome, which had voted the monument, the emperors decided to put the statue back in its place in Trajan’s Forum. So a monument that had first been awarded by one emperor (iamdumdum meruerat, l. 9) only to be taken away by another, was returned and honour restored. The extant inscription for Taurus ought thus to be dated to between March 28^th 364 AD, when Valentinian I promoted his brother Valens, and August 24^th 367 AD, when Valentinian’ son Gratian was made Augustus, a figure who would not otherwise have been omitted. In stark contrast, Constantius II had originally dedicated the monument to Flavius Taurus during the latter's praetorian prefecture of Italy and Africa (355-361 AD), before Taurus had been appointed to the consulate in the second half of 360 AD (maybe on the occasion of the emperor’s visit to Rome in May 357 AD). In 355/360 AD probably Julian Caesar was listed as dedicator next to Constantius II Augustus in the inscription engraved on the base of the Taurus’ monument. This monument to Taurus is not the only one by Constantius II to honour one of his praetorian prefects (below).

In order to understand the dynamics of these epigraphic texts, it is appropriate to briefly examine the career of Flavius Taurus. Libanius attests that Flavius Taurus (PLRE I, Taurus 3, pp. 879-880) was of eastern origin and that he came from a poor social background (Lib., Or. 42, 24). The rhetorician lists him among the new parvenus senators of Constantinople (such as Philippus, Domitianus, Helpidius and others), who got a foothold in the imperial service thanks to their practical skills as notarii (like Flavius Philippus, the other low-born praetorian prefect who was totally devoted to Constantius II, see PPRET 27). These low-ranking clerks, who took shorthand minutes at the emperor’s council and redacted official documents, increased their importance under Constantine and Constantius II by being privy to thorny imperial affairs or being dispatched on diplomatic missions (Olszaniec 2013, p. 409; Rendina 2020, pp. 47-48). Being entrusted with such roles might explain how Taurus’ succeeded in rising to such key positions in the imperial administration (see below). Nevertheless, as Moser states (2018, p. 247), one would be wrong to assume that this type of career was normal. Generally, men of a socially inferior rank could not compete with Constantinopolitan senators and rarely if ever, reached any higher post than that of a simple governor. Seeck (1894, pp. 444-446) identifies our court official Taurus with the author of the De re rustica, that is to say Palladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus (PLRE I, Aemilianus 7, pp. 23-24), but his arguments are hard to accept and should be rejected. The latter seems to have lived in the 5th Century and been a vir illustris (De Bonfils 1981, p. 156; Olszaniec 2013, p. 408).

The main stages of Taurus’ career are listed on the inscription from Trajan’s Forum. Taurus became comes primi ordinis in 345 AD (Scharf 1994, p. 59), one of the closest members of the emperor’s court, he was actively involved in the religious policy of Constantius II. He was among the dignitaries who tried to convince Athanasius the Great to return to Alexandria in 345 AD (Athan., Hist. Ar. 22, 01) and one of the judges (among whom there was also Vulcacius Rufinus, see PPRET 32) who tried the bishop Photinus at Sirmium in 351 AD (Epiph., Adv. haeres., 71). Taurus remained comes for about ten years, after which he appears from 353 to 354 AD as the devoted quaestor sacrii palatii of Constantius II. The emperor sent him on a mission to Armenia (Amm. 14, 11, 14, after departing Italy he reached Constantinople in the Summer of 354 AD, where he declined to meet Caesar Gallus who was about to be executed). The purpose of the embassy is not known, but it is hypothesised that Taurus had been sent to arrange a marriage between Olympias (PLRE I, Olympias 1, p. 642; Chausson 2002), the daughter of the praetorian prefect Ablabius (see PPRET 16, 17, 18), and the King of Armenia Arsaces III (De Bonfils 1981, p. 159). Whatever the case, Armenia was a buffer state between two warring empires – the Roman and the Persian – and required extra special handling (Harries 1988, p. 154). Furthermore, he was one of those few dignitaries in the 4th Century who obtained the patricia dignitas, before becoming praetorian prefect (Barnes 1975, p. 169; Mathisen 2012).

In 355 AD the time was ripe for a new position, in this particular case a high government post over the eastern provinces. Taurus thus concluded his palatine career at the side of Constantius II and took up the praetorian prefecture of Italy and Africa, the tenure running from 355 AD (CTh 07, 04, 02) to 361 AD (CTh 08, 04, 07, see Barnes 1992, p. 258). The inscription in honour of Taurus from Trajan’s Forum contains the first epigraphic attestation of the regional determination of a praetorian prefecture: per Italiam atque Africam. No fewer than thirty constitutions of the Codex Theodosianus confirm that the administrative district of Taurus consisted of the dioceses of Italy and Africa. Palanque (1933, pp. 32-36) argued that Taurus had jurisdiction only over Africa as an independent prefecture from 355 to 356 AD. He also argued that at the same time Lollianus signo Mavortius was prefect of Italy, even if he administered Illyricum (see PPRET 45), and over both Italy and Africa from 357 to 361 AD, only to correct himself a few years later (see Palanque 1955, pp. 261-262.) On the other hand, Vogler (1979, pp. 126-129) places Taurus in Africa between April and July 355 AD. From the second half of 355 to 361 AD, Taurus was praetorian prefect of Italy and Africa, while Lollianus signo Mavortius (355-356), Anatolius (357-360, PPRET 47), Florentius (360-361) were praetorian prefects of Illyricum. As we have said, after the acclamation of Julian (February 360 AD), Constantius II rewarded his devoted prefects Taurus and Florentius with the ordinary consulship in the sensitive year of 361 AD (CLRE, pp. 256-257), something that was omitted in our inscription since it was inaugurated in Rome some time before 1^st January.

It is noteworthy that the three most trusted palatine office holders, Taurus, Philippus (see PPRET 27, PPRET 2828, PPRET 29, PPRET 30, PPRET 31) and Eugenius (see PPRET 48), all of whom originated from Greek-speaking provinces and who, according to Libanius, were all of humble origins, represent the only examples we have of praetorian prefects to be showered in honours by Constans and Constantius II and, more generally, by any emperor in Late Antiquity up to that moment (i.e. 359 AD). They began and carried on their career within the imperial palace at the side of Constantine and his sons holding a series of important high-profile offices (also Philippus was notarius and curator palatii, see PPRET 27, Eugenius comes, holder of all palatine offices, magister officiorum, see PPRET 48). When they reached the culmination of their careers, becoming praetorian prefects, all three demonstrated unswerving loyalty, never abandoning their master, even during the most critical moments of his reign. Not even the usurpation of Magnentius in 350 AD (see PPRET 27, PPRET 48) and that of Julian in 360-361 AD was enough to make them bend. Thus, the monuments of Eugenius and Taurus in Trajan’s Forum were removed only to be later restored. All three received, in the West and the East, similar monuments and dedications with the praises of their personal merits towards the emperor: gilded statues intended to eternally preserve their memory (ad perpetuam laudabilis viri memoriam, l. 10; sit eius in re publica nostra memoria sempiterna, ll. 35-36 of the letter of Ephesus, see PPRET 28). Both Taurus and Eugenius had gilded statues put up in their honour in Trajan's Forum in Rome, while Philippus received similar treatment in many cities of the eastern provinces. It is worth bearing in mind that Taurus and Eugenius obtained a place in the Forum by the will of the Senate of Rome.

Bibliography

Barnes T.D., Patricii under Valentinian III, Phoenix, 29, 1975, 155-170.

Barnes T.D., Praetorian Prefects, 337-361, ZPE, 94, 1992, 249-260.

Bauer F.A., Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung des öffentlichen Raums in den spätantiken Städten Rom, Konstantinopel und Ephesos, Mainz am Rhein 1996.

Bauer F.A., Virtuelle Statuensammlungen, in Bauer F.A., Witschel C. (hrsg.), Statuen in der Spätantike, Wiesbaden 2007, 79-109.

Bruggisser Ph., Senatus amplissimus. Étude de terminologie institutionnelle, in Bertrand-Dagenbach C., Chausson F. (éd.), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Nanceiense, Bari 2014, 93-110.

Chausson F., La famille du préfet Ablabius, Pallas, 60, 2002, 205-229.

Chenault R., Statues of Senators in the Forum of Trajan and the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity, JRS 102, 2012, 103-132.

De Bonfils G., Il comes et quaestor nell'età della dinastia costantiniana, Napoli 1981.

Gordon A.E., Quintus Veranius, Consul A. D. 49: a Study Based upon His Recently Identified Sepulchral Inscription, Berkeley 1952.

Harries J., The Roman Imperial Quaestor from Constantine to Theodosius II, JRS, 78, 1988, 148-172.

Lugli G., Fontes ad topographiam veteris urbis Romae pertinentes, III, Roma 1955.

Mathisen R.W., Patricii, episcopi et sapientes: le choix des ambassadeurs pendant l’Antiquité Tardive dans l’Empire Romain et les royaumes barbares, in Becker A., Drocourt N. (éd.), Ambassadeurs et ambassades au coeur des relations diplomatiques: Rome, Occident médiéval, Byzance (VIIIe s. avant J.-C. - XIIe s. après J.-C.), Metz 2012, 227-238.

Migl J., Die Ordnung der Ämter. Prätorianerpräfektur und Vikariat in der Regionalverwaltung des Römischen Reiches von Konstantin bis zur Valentinianischen Dynastie, Frankfurt 1994.

Moser M., Emperor and Senators in the Reign of Constantius II. Maintaining Imperial Rule between Rome and Constantinople in the Fourth Century AD, Cambridge 2018.

Niquet H., Monumenta virtutum titulique. Senatorische Selbstdarstellung im spätantiken Rom im Spiegel der epigraphischen Denkmäler, Stuttgart 2000.

Olszaniec S., Prosopographical Studies on the Court Elite in the Roman Empire (4th Century AD), Toruń 2013.

Palanque J.-R., Essai sur la préfecture du prétoire du bas-empire, Paris 1933.

Palanque J.-R., Les préfets du prétoire sous les fils de Constantin, Historia, 4, 1955, 257-263.

Paribeni R., Iscrizioni dei Fori Imperiali, NSA, 9, 1933, 431-523.

Rendina S., L'inarrestabile ascesa di una famiglia orientale, in Oppedisano F. (a cura di), Procopio Antemio imperatore di Roma, Bari 2020, 45-71.

Scharf R., Comites und comitiva primi ordinis, Stuttgart 1994.

Seeck O., Studien zur Synesios, Philologus, 52, 1894, 442-483.

Vogler C., Constance II et l'administration impériale, Strasbourg 1979.

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit