Roman diocese

Original dioceses of the Roman Empire, created by emperor Diocletian (284–305)

Dioceses of the Roman Empire around 400 AD

The word diocese (Latin: dioecēsis, from the Greek: διοίκησις, "administration") means 'administration,' 'management,' 'assize district,' 'management district.' It can also refer to the collection of taxes and to the territory per se.

The earliest use of "diocese" as an administrative unit is found in the Greek-speaking eastern parts of Anatolia. Three districts, Cibyra, Apamea, and Synnada, were added to the Province of Cilicia in the time of Cicero, who mentioned the fact in his epistles. In the mid-third century 3rd century A.D. the word was applied to temporary districts within proconsular provinces of the 'populus,' like Asia and Africa which were more internal and less threatened. Starting with Gallienus, 253-268 these proconsuls were directly appointed by the emperor rather than being chosen by lot from among the senators. Often these proconsuls, who frequently served for more than one year, were attended by correctores assigned to districts, dioceses,' into which the larger provinces were divided.^[1] However these subdivisions of provinces are not to be considered the antecedents of the later 'vicariate' dioceses created sometime between 298 and 313/14 which were regional conglomerates of provinces and numbered from 4 (Britain and Macedonia) to 21 (Oriens including Egypt until 370 or 380) and in total number from 101 in the Verona List if June 314 (from 47 in 284) to 118 in 395 in the Notitia Dignitatum.

Vicariate dioceses were governed by officials with the title of agens vices praefectorum praetorio. This title is formal and normative; it was used in full or as avpp on inscriptions (which give the office holder's career ladder -in Latin cursus honorum). The title means he who stands in for, acts on behalf of, represents, or manages instead of the praetorian prefects. There are variations of this title and circumlocutions in other sources such as 'vice sacra iudicans' for he who judges for the emperor on appeal; vicaria praefectura (substitute prefecture) and vicarius praefectorum (vicar of the prefects), vicarius illustrissimae praefecturae per dioceses (vicar of the most illustrious prefecture), administrans vices praefectorum (administering for the prefect), curans or gerens vicariam praefecturam (taking care of or administering the substitute prefecture), pro praefectis dioceses sibi creditas temperarunt (who regulate dioceses entrusted to them on behalf of prefects), qui vicariam egerint praefecturam (who controlled the substitute prefecture). The word 'vicarius' by itself is frequent and is the most common, informal abbreviation of the other longer titles.

Vicariate Dioceses

Synopsis: The appearance of the 'vicariate' dioceses is one of numerous innovations in the period from 260-345 AD that fixed the shape of imperial bureaucracy for almost 200 years; and was one of the innovations that inaugurated the [[Constantinian dynasty's adminisraive policy of "regionally based centralism."^[2] Vicars were introduced to provide on-the-spot supervision and control conglomerations of provinces whose numbers had increased from 47 in 284 to 100+ by 305 AD ("The benefits of the subdivision of provinces were that each governor could devote more time to supervising the cities, transport and communications, and the food supply, and to hearing judicial cases from a smaller number of people. They could exercise a tighter control over a smaller number of taxpaying provincials that would have been the case if they has still governed larger areas. Control was the order of the day, as was prevention of rebellion," Pat Southern, The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine, 2001 pp. 165-166, ISBC 0-415-23944-3; A. H. M. Jones, "The object was to tighten up the administration by giving governors a smaller area to control. A governor now had to divide his time between jurisdiction and finance. The latter had become a more complicated and troublesome matter, since beside the old money taxes, a multitude of requisitions had to be organized"..."and had a heavy burden of administrative work," A.H.M. Jones, Later Roman Empire, 1964, pp. 45-46, ISNB 0-8018-3353-1; Constanin Zuckermann, 'Sur la liste de Verone et la province de grande armenie, la division de l'empire et la date de creation des dioceses,' Travaux et Memoires 14, Melanges Gilbert Dagron 2002, pp. 627, 636-637). However, further major administrative changes re the division of competencies among the various ministries were not made after 314, if contemplated, before the last obstacle, Licinius, emperor in the East, was removed by Constantine in late 324. During the years 325-330 the emperor re-arranged and rationalized existing competencies between the prefects, the Treasury, the Res Privata and the Master of the Offices. These measures transformed the vicars from being the senior officials in the regions they governed to being the effective heads of the whole administrative apparatus after they were granted appeal jurisdiction in fiscal debt cases involving the Treasury (the Res Summa or from 318 Sacrae Largitiones) and Crown Estates (Res Privata). The transfer gave them the power to monitor the fiscal departments, but did not allow the vicars (or prefects) to meddle in the everyday operations of these two independent ministries. From the 380s the policy was very gradually reversed in fits and starts (and perhaps without so much thought as how it fit into the wider scheme of things). From the 360s one sees the rise of powerful praetorian prefects who encroached on the prerogatives of the Treasury and the Crown Estates in a series of off-and-on turf wars which the prefects had won by the 440s. The result was a return to the prefect/governor-centered two-tier administrative policy from the second half of the 5th century as had obtained prior to the creation of dioceses, even though on the books the intermediate tier was still in operation without much diminution of formal responsibilities.^[2] The intermediate sphere was relegated though moribund, A. H. M. Jones, LRH I, 1964 pp. 280-282 ISBN 0-8018-3353-1; Errington, ibid; Jacek Wiewiorowski, The Judiciary of Diocesan Vicars in the Later Roman Empire, 2016, pp. 293, 297 299-301 ISBN 978-83-232-2925-4; L.E.A. Franks, Review of Wiewiorowski, Byzantinische Zeitscdrift, 2016, Band 109 Heft 2, p. 992.

The existence of a previously created set of 'fiscal' regional dioceses from the late 280s does not imply that the creation of the 'vicariate' dioceses was an inevitability. Good experience with the former may have been an influence to expand the innovation with the addition of the primarily judicial/supervisorial units to match the fiscal side.

Civil dioceses and the Reforms of Diocletian

The Roman administration had not been rationally planned at a go (which is not to say that responses were not rational or there was not rational planning), but was the product of several centuries of evolution. As a result lines of authority were at critical junctures porous; responsibilities were somewhat. Sets of administrative interdepartmental overlaps, inherited and developed, bound the system together in a some crazy-quilt fashion (Jones, Later Roman History, pp. 376–377; Age of Constantine, Ed. Noel Lenski, Christopher Kelly, 'Law and Society,' pp. 184–192 and Kelly Ruling the Later Roman Empire, pp. 206–210). Diocletian took the system he inherited, modified it, added, refined, and improved it but made no thorough overhaul. In fact it never was. The emperor saw a more interventionist imperial government involved in every aspect of governance down to the municipal level(Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, Roger Rees, 2004, pp. 22–23, 27, 90 whether "...working steadily towards its intended goal; or perhaps it suggests a rather arbitrary series of makeshift reactions"..."Whether or not there was any coherent political philosophy, or indeed government collegiality, are controversial questions," p. 39). After the death of Constantine the administrative structure was more or less fixed although the competencies within it were shifted about to get the desired or at least acceptable results. There appear to be three major clusters of reforms: in the mid-290s which dealt with fiscal matters and with increasing government efficiency; Constantine's reorganization of the palatine administration and the final removal of military command from prefects and governors in 312-14; and between 325-330 a partial rationalization of the administration system already in place.

Diocletian established mints near heavy concentrations of troops. He divided the 47 provinces beginning with the division of Italy in the early 290 into eight districts. By the end of his reign in 305 there were 100+ provinces (the number varied and went up to 120). Smaller provinces were more effective and easier to administer by governors who were given more judicial and financial responsibilities as their military commands were removed. The emperor ended the arbitrary army requisitions (plundering) which had become almost the norm during the years of crises and increasing high inflation which devalued the currency in the years 250–280 by instituting a separate tax (the Annona Militaris) whose collection and administration he placed with the prefects. He undertook censuses done by region with provincial variations in preparation for the introduction of a tax assessment system which gave the empire a regular budget in the modern sense for the first time. Due to debasement of the coinage 80% or more of tax came to be collected in kind (a common practice previously, but not so prevalent when goods and services could be paid in a stable gold and silver coinage). Even so, in-kind taxes were from time to time converted to payment in gold or silver, adaeratio, especially if it involved the payment of arrears - it was simply easier to do and did not involve expensive land transport charges associated with the movement of bulk goods). At times soldiers' in kind pay was converted to gold payments. Beginning in the reign of Constantine taxes were occasionally commuted to gold. The pace picked up modestly during the reigns of Valentinian I (364-375) and Valens (364-378) and quickened towards end of the 4th century as the treasuries accumulated more precious metal, Jones. op. cit. pp. 460–461. He tried to recreate the tri-metal stable coinage of bronze, silver and gold dating from the Augustan period, but this failed. If was in fact never restored although the gold aureus minted at 62 to the pound and lowered to 72 to the pound kept its value for centuries.

He transferred responsibility for military supply and logistics to the civilian administration in order to get a strangle hold on the army. It is claimed this caused log jams since supply was placed in the control of reluctant liturgists and contracting services directly with local populations.^[14] He rebuilt the army after years of campaigns had sapped its strength (estimated strength of which varied from 389,704 + 45,562 in the fleets under Diocletian, according to John Lydus, a 6th-century bureaucrat of the prefecture of the East, to 645,000 by Agathias).^[15]

He began much needed infrastructure repairs on roads, bridges and other public facilities after years of neglect. He tried to centralize the administration of justice with the governors (by banning the use of governor appointed judges, iudices pedanei to take cases in their place - with little effect; there were municipal courts which handled minor civil and criminal cases), but this overloaded the dockets of gubernatorial courts; he began the separation of civil administration from military command from governors (which Constantine completed in 312 at which time prefects were stripped of active command); made liturgies obligatory (free services provided the state and cities by private citizens either monetarily or in labor and supplies); furthered 'professionalization' of the bureaucracy by employing more salaried men of free birth until it was all men of free-birth by the time of Constantine (the service had evolved gradually from the mostly freedmen and slaves characteristic of large aristocratic households to something resembling the civil service of pre-modern times with civil service exams) w.^[16]He tried to recreate the tri-metal stable coinage of bronze, silver and gold dating from the Augustan period, but this failed. If was in fact never restored although the gold aureus minted at 62 to the pound and lowered to 72 to the pound kept its value for centuries.

The emperor's interventionist policies changed the relationship of the imperial government to the municipalities in governance especially in tax matters. The traditional system of government since Republican times which had relied on participation of local elites whose continuation and success was fostered by imperial authority. The relationship was compromised by his encroachment on the customary spheres of control and operations of these elites. Instead of volunteering their services they tried to escape from the onerous burdens. Service became chore, Michael Whitby, Rome at War AD 293-696, 2002, p. 68, ISBN 1-84176-359-4. A prime example of this in tax policy illustrates the change. During the Principate the government had issued tax demands, indictiones, which the city councils allocated as they wished. From his reign the government not only issued and but also allocated the demands which was seen as n encroachment on local rights. The imperial bureaucracy tried to police the whole process at every level for each taxable community in order to hold it to its collective responsibility.^[17] He made the collection and distribution of taxes in kind an hereditary obligation which required the enormous effort by members of the city councils and the taxpayers.

Town councilors were forced to perform liturgical duties for the State and their municipalities at their own expense, a long time practice that went back centuries. These were paid for in the Early Empire by the state, cities and by private individuals who donated funds to court the favor of the populace, gain honor and prestige, and leave visible memorials of their generosity. During the Later Empire private largess for public projects practically ceases. Neither the councils nor individuals wanted to pay out for the maintenance of civic amenities. Diocletian made them do it as an obligation. The liturgist was released from his obligation after performance over a number of years but the obligation was passed to his heir. Liturgies were of two types, patrimonalia, which were charges on property and involved expenditure and therefore as a form of tax, and personalia which were duties that required personal service, Jones, ibid. pp. 452, 724. The richer liturgists tried to shirk their duties by passing them on to the poorer or to attain senatorial rank which exempted them for their performance. The prefects drew up the lists, the vicars guaranteed and governors assigned (CTh. 11, 16, 4, 328 and passim) the performance of munera/leitourgia and munera sordida. Performance of munera personalia was “the exercise of a responsibility and sometimes physical work” such as performing corvee, doing road work, bridge construction and repair, burning lime, bread-making, and others. Other liturgical obligations included the extra provision of supplies and animals for the army, timber, the transport of food stuffs to the capitals cost of which was reimbursed (Jones. op. cit. p.&nbsp. 452); production of horses and recruits, transport of food stuffs, animals and garments, the charge of the public post and provision of emergency animals, the buying of corn and oil for a city, heating of the baths, food inspection, police duties, collection and distribution of food, and the collection of tax in money instead of in kind, Jones, p. 749; CAH XII, pp. 365–366). Public works, opera publica, were paid for by rich, cities or the central government and built the lower classes to give employment or as forced labor: city walls, public buildings, baths, fiscal buildings, aqueducts, auditoriums, dye works, camps, churches, workshops, prisons, storehouses, martyries, palaces, colonnades, lighthouses, bridges, harbors, porticoes, Senate Houses, circuses, amphitheaters, gubernatorial residences, stables, temples and towers (Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code, 1948, p. 592).

He confiscated city lands and other properties, revenues and endowments and them placed to the Res Privata in trust. Julian returned them to the cities. Valentinian I returned one-third of the income ostensibly for the construction of city defensive walls. Management of the funds were later returned to the cities for the maintenance of cities' fabrics. The combined income from the municipalities acted as Equalization Fund from which monies could be directed to poorer towns for renovation of public infrastructure under gubernatorial and vicariate supervision.

Fiscal dioceses

Fiscal concerns were uppermost in the minds of the rulers. Without revenue the Empire could not exist (“The impression conveyed in the legal codes is that the interests of the state were primarily fiscal,” Peter Garnsey and C.R. Whittker, CAH XIII, ‘Trade and the Urban Economy,’ p. 316; “In general, the concerns of the government were narrow"..."The state was intent upon getting members of corportations (collegia) to perform various compulsory services – liturgies, corvees, sordida munera -- not to control their professional activities,” p. 318). Diocletian created the empire-wide system of 'fiscal' dioceses early in his reign in 286 on. It may have been introduced gradually as the new tax system was introduced or may have been created to supervise the censuses in preparation for the introduction.

The fiscal regime that Diocletian established introduced abstract measures of assessment, the caput and iugum, the combined land and head tax of the High Empire, called capitatio an assessment of a community's total tax liability. Ad hoc requisitions were scrapped and all liturgies, burdens, military recruitment and supply charges were incorporated into a single, unified fiscal vocabulary. A municipality declared its assets in a number of iuga based on individual tax returns. The resulting figure was used by the imperial censitores to assess the total tax burden, capitatio, in abstract units. Each of these capita would be earmarked as fulfilling a particular charge or liturgy. Conversion between iugum and caput was effected by means of conversion tables. The aim was to identify individuals responsible for the tax burden on field. The system of captitatio-iugatio determine the productive capacity of each field while the second, the individual responsible, was achieved by means of the origo, an administrative unit which could be laden with a proportion of a community's tax burden or a specific liturgy and which came to refer to the legal residence of those responsible for these: by means of orgiones, the landed wealth of municipalities could be compartmentalized, categorized and laden with a variety of liturgies, functiones, or fiscal burdens and enforced by the principle of collective responsibility. This was good from the government's perspective but created a static, idealized picture of agricultural activity, and the realities of economic behavior that relied on the mobility of labor. The result was a disparity between what was recorded on the tax rolls and the reality on the ground which was likely to create problems for the tax collector. The initiative to correct this disparity was place on the taxpayers form whom a constant stream of information was necessary and by providing communities with mechanisms by which they could request tax equalization, i.e. the redistribution of assets and burden of taxation, quoted from Cam Grey, Constructing Communities in the Late Roman Countryside, 2016, pp. 189-197, ISBN 978-1-107-01162-5. The vicars would be given the greater responsibility for making the system work post-330 (and of course in dioceses ruled by prefects!).

The fiscal diocese was not an invention of the emperor: it already existed in Egypt which was used as the model for fiscal dioceses empire-wide. The Egyptian unit had been headed by the Dioketes of the Res Summa in Egypt, Cyrenaica and Crete.^[18] There is list of the earliest .^[19] In 286 this official appears with a new title, Katholikos. His duties were the same as his predecessor's.^[20] There are references to two more elsewhere in the very early 290s.^[21] Even though the record is incomplete for the early period, it is assumed fiscal diocese existed in all regions under Diocletian.^[22] Lactantius mentions them along with their subordinate managers (magister) of the Crown Estates, the Res Privata, (he magistri were junior to the comptrollers until the mid-350s when they were elevated to the same rank as the comptrollers of the Treasury) during the First Tetrarchy, 293-305. Such an expansion would have fit in well with the taking of empire-wide censuses and the introduction of the new tax assessment system. Both officials are attested to in Egypt in 298 (two Sacrae Largitiones procurators assisted the comptroller). Both officials are attested to in Egypt in 298 (two Sacrae Largitiones procurators assisted the comptroller). The 'fiscal' diocese 'housed' the Crown Estates (the Res Privata),.^[23] The jurisdictional lines were not the same for both everywhere because the Res Privata estates were delineated within provinces while the jurisdiction of the Treasury was contiguous with provincial boundaries. Both officials reported to respective palatine superiors who were attached to the emperor's personal entourage. The Treasury officials worked with the governors to whom the prefects transmitted their orders pertaining to financial matters and the budgets. The SL comptrollers and the Crown Estate managers received the tax demands and rent rates from the annual publication of the budgets.

The Treasury raised revenue from many types of taxes paid in gold: the aurum coronarium, supposedly a voluntary contribution 'offered' by cities on the accession of an emperor, on the 5th anniversary of the accession and the celebration of an Triumph; an equivalent tax from the senators called the aurum oblaticium (or oblatio senatoria)- these two taxes seem to have been timed to the quinquennial donative to the troops. Two taxes (to procure more gold revenue) were instituted by Constantine the collatio glebalis or folles, a property tax assessment on senators (above the amount of regular tax paid by their estates) and the collatio lustralis tax paid in gold by businessmen and -women. The latter tax was levied on assets. It is recorded the city of Edessa (now Urfa in Turkey near the Syrian border) paid 35 pounds per year or 2,520 solidi. An estimate suggests Egypt paid 1,400 pounds a year or 100,000 solidi a year^[24] The aurum tironicum was a commutation of the recruit tax usually in the amount of 25 or 30 solidi per man to pay for barbarian mercenaries. Horses and mules for the army were requisitioned. Additional revenue was raised from fees, rents, leases, surcharges, licensing fees, sales tax, transit dues (the quadragisima Galliarium at 2.5%), tolls such as harbor dues and city gate tax (appropriated to the treasury by Constantine), excise tax paid by merchants, customs and import taxes, taxes on mines and quarries, fines of various sorts; tax on the means of production, mortgages, interest payments, and prostitution. The State resorted to the practice of demanding gold and/or silver from individuals at a price fixed by the government, aurum comparaticum, in order to get at private hordes.^[25] The Treasury paid cash stipendia to officials and soldiers and the accession donatives of the latter. It produced, collected and distributed clothing to the court, military and civil service. The Treasury operated the state armories, mints and leased mines to private contractors; funded and maintained imperial palaces and other facilities.

The Res Privata, the Crown Estates, supplied income to the emperors from rent and taxes on leased or managed imperial lands which until 366 could be paid in kind or in gold or silver: afterwards only in the latter. Most of the Res Privata was actually let out to private individuals who paid rent and regular tax. Res Privata lands were exempted from supplemental levies and liturgies. The density of these estates across the empire was uneven. The percentage of Crown Property was very high in Tunisia and eastern Algeria, parts of Italy, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Palestine; within the territory of the city of Cyrrhus in northern Syria 16% of the registered land was imperial "But Cyrrhus may well have been exceptional" it had been the home of Avidius Cassius whose estates were confiscated after his rebellion against Marcus Aurelius, Jones op. cit. p. 414-416. There is little information to estimate the amount of rent and revenue paid on the imperial land.

The Res Privata operated clothing mills and dye works. In the West half the Res Privata income went to the Sacrae Largitiones.^[26] Prior to 366 Res Privata rent and taxes could be paid in kind or in gold and silver; afterwards in specie only. The discontinuation of in kind payments may have come about as the consequence of imperial financial duress occasioned by the extravagances of Julian, the cost of his ruinous Persian War and the massive need for gold and silver to pay two accession donatives of Jovian in 363 and Valentinian I and Valens in 364 to 600,000 soldiers (83,334 pounds each year, a sum equal to 28% of imperial revenue estimated 300,000 pounds of gold per annum)^[27] who embarked measures to restore financial health including revenue drives.^[28].

Until the 360s the Res Privata with its vast local agents and staff was able to collect its own rents and taxes, A.H. M, Jones, LRE I, p. 414. Perhaps because of duress in imperial finances from the mid-360s governors were assigned supervision of the collection of Res Privata rents (lands paid rent and regular tax referred to as 'rent'). The result was massive arrears in the 370s. Theodosius I in 382 ordered collection to be transferred back to the rationales. The same change was ordered by Valentinian II in the West. In 395 and in 399 the policy in the West had been reversed twice leaving collection in the hands of the governors. In 394 the count of the Orient was involved in RP revenue collection. The count's request for additions to his staff of 600 to carry out the collectiond. From 399 collection in the West lay with the governors under supervision of palatini (of the RP) sent down from central office; in the East it is not entirely clear from the two pieces of evidence whether it solely under the governors or in concert with the rationales of the RP, Jones, ibid.

Before the 5th century the fiscal ministries supplied the emperors with the bulk of their income in gold and silver (until 366 payment of tax and rent in gold and silver to the Res Privata was optional). In the Western half if the Empire the revenue of the Res Privata was directed to the Sacrae Largitiones which was still in charge of both departments into the 5th century, not so the Res Privata in the East whose revenue went solely to itself. The two fiscal ministries in many respects were two sides of the same coin as they operated in tandem. For example, the Sacrae Largitiones in the West supervised the Res Privata and received some of its income; and the heads and some officials from one department sometimes performed duties for the other.^[29] The income was spent within the provinces or dioceses as needed or directed to the emperors. The heads of the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata which were held accountable for the collection and distribution of the revenue due their ministries whether their agents collected or not. Most of the emperors' income in gold and silver came from the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata before the commutation of the prefects' in kind land tax revenue (80% of total income) got underway more rapidly very late in the 4th in the early 5th centuries,^[30] a trend which eventually contributed to making redundant the palatine and regional fiscal departments and the dioceses.^[31] The use of income from the Res Privata was at an emperor's discretion and sense of munificence: he could use it for personal gifts, civic donations, palace expenses: it was used regularly to supplement the regular budget of the prefects. For example, the giant expedition against the Vandals (a flop) was financed by the prefects, the Treasury and the Crown Estates.

Before 325 the regional rationales (whose superiors and staffs resided with the emperors) were ubiquitous. They were involved in almost every aspect of tax collection it seems,^[32] except for the Annona Militaris which from its inception was solely prefects' responsibility as quarter-masters general of the army. Although the prefects had lost active military command they became even more so as effective heads of the imperial commissary and logistics supply systems. They did not however have sole control over all in kind tax collection which was still shared with the Treasury. Constantine changed this. He confined the Sacrae Largitiones and its regional rationales to oversight of money tax collections in precious metals at a time when the gold coinage, the solidus (fixed at 72 to the pound by Constantine in 309), was contributing to the stabilization of imperial finances. He split the treasury into three parts, each prefect, Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata having his own (the accounts were always separate pre- and -post division). He transferred appeal jurisdiction over Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata fiscal debt cases between 327 and 329 to the prefects and vicars (the governors already pronounced sentences of confiscated property for assimilation to the Res Privata).^[33] He abolished the remaining provincial Sacrae Largitiones procurators of the comptrollers which left the Sacrae Largitiones without a field force to supervise collection its own taxes.^[34] The lack of provincial-level Sacrae Largitiones staff was made up by transferring their role to the governors under the control of the prefects and vicars and monitoring by the comptrollers. The rationales continued to have numerous minor agents to look after their affairs in many cities: these were the imperial officials called the largitionales civitatum or urbium singularium (in Italy and Gaul there were also had regional largitionales). The comptrollers' collection duties largely devolved upon the governors who already had responsibility for the prefects' tax revenues. The rationales remained responsible for the actual collection performed by others, and personally for distribution to the designated Sacrae Largitiones provincial, diocesan or palatine treasuries. Their staffs, transport service (the bastaga) and guards transported specie. They conducted first instance trials for debt, and directed the special agents of the Sacrae Largitiones who were sent annually from central command to stimulate the governors' tax collection efforts for the Sacrae Largitiones.^[35] The comptrollers watched the vicars and governors and themselves were watched by the vicars. They plus the Res Privata managers were conveniently located almost everywhere in the diocesan see cities. In one case, diocese of Africa, the diocese managed the Sacrae Largitiones accounts,^[36] a clear case of encroachment during a period, the 370s to 382 when governors were supervising the collection of Res Privata rents - which led to massive arrears, a very poor policy decisions since they didn't have the staff to do it. One year after the transfer of Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata appeal debt to the prefecture the first reference appears of 'diocese' to denote a region governed by a vicar, the word reserved thereafter exclusively vicariate dioceses.^[37]

On the other hand, Constantine's reforms left the Res Privata's provincial structure intact, no doubt because of the vastness of the land holdings and the desire to keep it out of the hands or influence of the prefectures. Most of the Res Privata's holdings were not actually managed by the RP but leased to private individuals (conductores). That portion under direct control was administered by a network of local managers, the actores, under the direction of provincial procurators and the regional managers, the magistri. The leased properties, the patrimonium, paid rent and regular tax but was exempt from supplemental tax demands and the performance of liturgies (which made it very attractive, if a good investment, to private parties these were in effect permanent tax holidays - but it did attract people who wanted to shift ownership of their private lands to the Res Privata surreptitiously). Tax holidays were given on the condition that lands were brought under cultivation. Until the 360s the Res Privata managed the collection of rent and taxes. However, in the 370s governors were assigned to supervise the collection from time to time.^[38] Unfortunately the results were huge arrears The experiment was ended in the early 380s. The in the 390s it was resorted to again By the end of the century it lay with the governors in the West and jointly in the East with the rationales (the two laws in CJ give both so it is unclear whether the collection was joint or not).^[39] Towards the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th centuries vicars are occasionally seen involved in direct supervision of Res Privata rents and the regular tax on Res Privata land which was owed the prefecture.^[39] Eventually the Res Privata fell under the power of the Palace senior chamberlain.^[40]

After reforms of 325-329 the two fiscal ministries remained independent: the prefects and their agents could not interfere with their normal routine operations unless given permission or instructed to do so. The prefects, however, possessed brakes on the two fiscal departments: they could not independently issue instructions, orders, timetables, dispatch deputies or initiate actions of any kind involving provincials without the prior approval of themselves or the emperor (dispostiones (administrative regulations, timetables, schedules), mandata (instructions, orders) and commonitoria (orders and memoranda) had to be confirmed, when the provisions contained in these had to be enforced by provincial authorities over whom the counts of the SL have no direct authority (but did have ways of putting the pressure on governors such as fines for poor service in collecting the income due the department).^[41] Ability to do this would reversed the rationalization of competencies. The prefects (no doubt with imperial approval and input from the ministers meeting in consistory) set policy and tax rates for the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata with imperial approval. SL deputies had to present themselves with their instructions to the governors who had separate copy of these. They had to carry out their orders through the governors who in turn could not interfere with them unless they transgressed: i.e. the governors supervised the collection for the SL. The SL staff and the comptrollers monitored the governors' performance and pressured them if necessary, Delmaire op. cit. p. 203-204. SL staff in the provinces were instructed to collect arrears through the courts and staff of the governors. Often they tried to do this directly on their own which made them subject to disciplinary action or arrest if they were found out. Such was the pressure to extract taxes it may be wondered how effective the threat was since these are repetitive.

The controllers were equestrian perfectissimi well into the 360s indictative of their junior status compared to the vicars. The first comptroller of senatorial rank was a Katholikos of Egypt ' in the 340s perhaps in recognition of this post's importance in the fiscal life of this rich province. The other comptrollers had to wait till the 360s and later. By the end of the century all were of senatorial rank (as were governors) as grade inflation within the mid-levels of the bureaucracy proceeded apace.

The three regional officials made up a triad of senior regional officials in an intermediate tier. The duties and functions of the two regional Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata officials and the vicars converged, and overlapped operationally at some points in particular with governors who had a hand in supervising the collection of SL taxes, and those of the RP off and on from the 370s (until this was made permanent around 400 AD). The overlaps provided officials with mutual checks on each other in a system that was constructed to "ensure that senior office holders might police the actions of their colleagues."^[42]. The administrative triangulations seen at every level were pervasive, if asymmetrical and incomplete. The check-and-balances the overlaps provided are typical of the system which used a scatter-gun approach of group accountability and culpability (backed up by threats of fines for whole departments) to maintain control of an out-of-sight and distant bureaucracy. The prohibition to stay away from the Sacrae Largitiones applied even more strictly to the Master(s) of the Offices, Ministers of Internal Security, were forbidden from having anything to do with the Sacrae Largitiones. ^[43] On the other hand, from the 340s the masters were 'represented' by senior agentes in rebus who were appointed as heads of the office in the prefectures, dioceses and two of three proconsular provinces; and by field inspectors of the public post who were stationed in diocesan and provincial see cities and other towns and cities such as ports. These administrative arrangements were parts of a series of overlapping triangulations clamped independent departments of State together with shared duties at discrete junctures.

Finally evolution and fates of all three regional officials are intertwined. Their decline converges in the mid-fifth century (without suggesting absolute synchronicity) as the prefects and palace administration gained more direct control over the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata respectively and the prefects bypassed the vicars in favor of greater direct contact with governors.^[44]

Prefects and vicars

Augustus created the post of praetorian prefect to command the Imperial Guard. It personal without territorial jurisdiction. The praetorian prefect by the reign of Diocletian had evolved from being a commander of the Imperial Guard to being vice-regent, "a kind of grand vizier" (Jones, op. cit. p. 371). The post had acquired important judicial, financial and administrative authority over the entire administration. He was commander of the armies, an associate chief justice of the emperor, head of administration, chief quartermaster-general of the army, and head of finance. Diocletian did not address the problem of task overload (this was left to Constantine after the defeat of Licinius in late 324). He kept the 'canonical' number of prefects at two even during the Tetrarchy: the Caesars had to do without. Constantine I broke with precedent by appointing Bassus in 318 as the third prefect for his son Crispus who had been put in charge of Britain and Gaul in 317. The number increased to four by 331, if not earlier. A fifth for Africa existed in the years 335–337. After the emperor's death in 337 the number reverted to three, one for each of his three son successors. Numbers varied from three to four until four as the 'canonical' number was fixed in 395 for Gaul, Italy, Illyricum and the East: These four existed from 342/43 to 361, from 375 to 379 and from 388 to 391.

Constantine beginning in 312 made innovations in the palatine administration but tentatively since he had an imperial colleague to deal with, Licinius, until November 325. He stripped the prefects of active military command which in any case they had not used for some time (vicars did not have military command if created post-312). The final removal separation of military command from prefects and governors created a purely civilian administration and military. The former had superior authority over the latter. There considerable evidence of friction between the two, Jones, op. cit. 376 including evidence of military attempts to encroach on the prerogatives of the civilian sphere in matters of supply procurement (such as violation of procedure by going around the civil authorities and making requisitions without their permission) and occasional illegal trials of civilians as defendants in courts-martial.

The emperor and Licinius founded the high-ranking imperial notaries who were the private corps of secretaries (and imperial emissaries). He made the Tribune of the Guards, the Scholai. He appointed him head of the imperial secretariats (the scrinia) between 313 and 315 and gave him the additional title of master of the offices. He placed the corps of imperial couriers the agentes in rebus under this tribune. He changed the name of the Res Summa, the Treasury, to Sacrae Largitiones by 319 (Kelly, op. cit. pp. 188–190 for these changes; cf. David D. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, pp. 71–172).

Beginning in 325 the emperor rearranged the competencies of the palatine administration in earnest with a set of changes that also affected the lower levels. He divided the Treasury into three one each for the Sacrae Largitiones, the Res Privata and the prefects (dating Delmaire, op. cit. p. 703). Previously the accounts though kept separate were administered by the Sacrae Largitiones for all (Jones. op. cit. p 411). Prefects were given sole control over the regular land tax revenue (possibly 75%–80% of the total): the Sacrae Largitiones was removed from further involvement in this aspect of finance. The collection of Sacrae Largitiones taxes was assigned to the governors oversight of whom in this matter was shared between the vicars and comptrollers (Delmaire, op. cit. p. 163, 199, 204–205, 243–244). The prefects continued to administer army payments in kind (Annona Militaris), weapons supply, and the funding and building of military installations (military unit commanding officers were restricted to distribution (Southern, op. cit. 270) which they had to account for after joint auditing with the provincial - and sometimes, diocesan - staffs (Jones, op. cit. p. 405). They funded the operation and repair of the public post, the construction and repair of roads, harbors and state granaries; the operation and supply of State armories and the supply of State mills operated by the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata (the armories and mills numbered 47 in the West; in the east 22, incomplete list; armories in the East came under the control of the MO by 390); the food supply of the capitals (in Rome this was done by the urban prefect, his subordinate the prefect of the Annona, and the vicar).

Importantly the emperor transferred appeals of fiscal debt owed the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata to the courts of the prefecture sometime between 327–329 (CTh. 11, 30, 28- the law is dated 359 but refers to a ruling of Constantine). Debt owed the prefecture was of course already under their jurisdiction. The shift of appellate jurisdiction to the higher courts of the prefecture brought the financial affairs of the three ministries together at one point at the end of the process - the collection of debt on appeal - as a complement to the prefecture's composition of the annual budget for all three at the starting point without compromising the immediate authority of the two fiscal departments who retained first instance jurisdiction. This arrangement lasted until 385 when appeal jurisdiction was restored to the counts of the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata who until this time acted in an advisory capacity in the prefectural courts. He removed the Sacrae Largitiones from involvement with the state post, the cursus publicus.^[45] The prefects lost any control they had had over the Treasury, Crown Estates, the imperial secretariats, the state security apparatus, the palace administration, the imperial guard the heads of the Sacrae Largitiones (and later the Res Privata ) and the MO were made comites. The Master of the Offices became the second-most important officer of State. Vicars and the prefect of the Annona of Rome were made governors.

Toward the end of his reign, perhaps in preparation for the Persian campaign which did not happen before he died in 337 Constantine placed the army under the control of two senior military officers, the master of the infantry and the master of the cavalry, David S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 2004, p. 372 ISBN 0-415-1058-5; Age of Constantine, 2006 Ed. Noel Lenski, 'Bureaucracy and Government, p. 187 ISBN 978-0-521-52157-4. The prefects had lost active military command at the beginning of the reign, any residual was lost with the appointment of the two senior command officers. Rather oddly the vicars are found leading minor military campaigns against Isaurian brigands in Isauria on the mid-350s, Asia in 363 (when the vicar was slain in an ambush) and led an army operating against the Sueves in northwest Spain in 418 at the same time the Visigoths were decimating the Vandals and Alans. The count of the Orient at the end of the 4th century commanded the fleet in Seleucia. the port for Antioch.

After the completion of major reforms in the years 325–329 the prefects remained (after the "fragmentation of the praetorian prefects vast area of responsibility, the foreshadowing of regional prefectures, and promotion of high-ranking military and civil offices" (Kelly, op. cit. p. 191) as chief finance officers, chief justices, quarter-masters general of the army, and, by reason of being vice-regents, heads of government or 'prime ministers' but not heads of administration since this responsibility had been transferred to the masters of the offices. The Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata were made independent in internal operations (their accounts had always been separate even before the prefecture was given its own treasury, the arca). Within their own jurisdictions the vicars and dioceses mirrored this rearrangement as deputies, but a step down in authority and with less discretionary power. The prefects remained in overall charge of the budgets (composed by region ("the prefect was responsible for the tax demands within his prefecture, all orders for payment issued form him, but the product of the collection went to different treasuries," Delmaire, op. cit. p. 243).

Post the reforms from 330 the prefects (also vicars, governors and urban prefect(s) and proconsuls) had appellate jurisdiction in civil, criminal and debt cases over the prefecture, Sacrae Largitiones, and Res Privata; and selective jurisdiction over senators who until 317 were completely under the jurisdiction of the urban prefect of Rome. Their verdicts could not be appealed (although from 365 injured parties were allowed a supplicatio to the emperor, CJ, 1, 19, 5). The prefecture had jurisdiction over soldiers in criminal and civil suits - criminal cases of soldier defendants were transferred to the courts martial in 355 and civil in 413 (Jones, op. cit. pp. 487–489). The prefects vicars and governors did not have disciplinary control over staff of other ministries, over soldiers or the master(s) of the offices provincial state post inspectors. Constantius II in 359 threatened to place them under the prefects if they could not be controlled (Jones, p. 389). In 317 Constantine transferred jurisdiction over senators accused of criminal offense to the courts of the governors from the urban prefect of Rome; in 364 civil cases in which senators were plaintiffs were also transferred to governors. In 376 a final reassignment was made: criminal cases of senators resident within 100 mile distance from Rome were transferred back to the urban prefect and a panel of five senators; civil suits involving senators went to the urban prefect of Rome in the suburbicarian portion of the Diocese of Italy which included the large islands with an option that cases could be sent to the praetorian prefect in Milan (Jones, op. cit. pp. 490–491). In all other regions the prefectures controlled cases criminal and civil cases involving senators either as plaintiffs or defendants. The legislation of 376 marks the last major upgrade to affect the vicars' role judicially. It is also one sign of further centralization of the administration under praetorian prefects: another during this decade was the experiment of having governors supervise the collection of Res Privata rents which set off a 'turf' war with the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata that lasted off-and-on for 75 years.^[10] One can see that changes were periodic. However, post-330 the most important competencies of and among the several ministries were more or less fixed for the rest of the 4th century. Despite this and without major formal changes the prefectures and the masters of the offices began to encroach on other ministries. In the absence of an emperor who alone had palatine heads of the Sacrae Largitiones, Res Privata, and the MO in his entourage, praetorian prefects who governed dioceses directly (most typically of Gaul in Trier) had to rely on diocesan-level equivalents. This replicates the administrative configuration in dioceses governed by vicars.

Constantine has been credited by the 5th century historian Zosimos with the creation of regional prefectures. This has been disputed as an anachronism based on the situation as it appears in the Notitia Dignitatum at the end of the 4th century (Kelly, op. cit. p. 186). The early prefectures of which there are four in 331 (five 335-337) may reflect more Constantine's dynastic hopes than administrative interests which appears in the 340s under Constans and Constantius I when there were four, the same as appears in 395 in the Notitia; and more evidently so from the 360s.^[46] The slow evolution of the prefectures as administrative is therefore the result of gradual centralization from the 360s which actually worked in favor of maintaining dioceses' continuing importance for some decades as they were used to advance this development.

The death of Constantine in 337 brings to a close the period of major administrative changes that began with Diocletian. The evolutionary trajectory may be laid out as follows: two prefects without territorial prefectures until 318; prefects' military command removed in 312; command of the Guards and imperial secretariat assigned to a military tribune who becomes master of the offices but who is still subordinate to the prefects until 325 or so; creation of senior generals, the masters of the foot and cavalry; transfer of more fiscal competencies to the prefects after removal of the SL form participation; creation of 'territorial' prefectures after a fashion, which begin to come into their own from the early 340s; removal of inspection authority over the public post from the prefects to the masters of the offices and appointment of some of his senior agents as office heads in the prefecture and two proconsuls. These innovations fixed the Roman Empire's basic governance structures for two centuries; and were the products of pre-285 structures, innovations and competencies being mixed, remolded and adapted over a period 50 years.^[47] Constantine's reforms also began a century-long off-and-on struggle between the heads of the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata on the one side and the prefects on the other who wanted to assert more control over the former, a battle won for the most part by the latter after 430.^[48]

Dioceses

The vicariate dioceses came into existence sometime between 297 and 313/14.

Various motives have been suggested for the creation of vicars in dioceses: to assist in Diocletian's division of provinces begun in the early 290s and to facilitate the introduction of the new tax assessment and collection system which may have begun in 287 and involved a series of censuses every 5 years, Egypt excepted until 297, which took 15 years to complete and which gave the empire a budget in the modern sense for the first time); provide 'relief officials' to overburdened prefects (there were only 2); process and vet state business for the palatine level, thereby increasing administrative efficiency and reduce turn around time due to slow communications.; secure control of regions by placing officials with "supreme power" in each of them for 313/14;^[49] counteract the centrifugal tendencies resulting from doubling the number of provinces;^[50] so that the prefects could delegate much of the detailed work (financial) to the 12 vicars with their attached financial departments;^[51] supervise governors so they would have more time to supervise the cities;^[52] provide 'relief' officers to overburdened prefects (there were only 2); process and vet state business for the palatine level, thereby increasing administrative efficiency and reduce turn around time due to slow communications. Underlying all of these is the desire for control; "control was the order of the day."^[53] Fiscal stability may have been at the top of list of concerns: the Empire could not be administered or defended without sufficient revenue in the budget (the value of liturgical contributions not included) which went to the army by some estimates from a low of 40% to a high of 70%.^[54] Conditions had changed: the empire could not be governed from the city of Rome post-284:the center was wherever the emperor(s) was residing for however a short or long period of time usually somewhere along the northern and eastern borders.

The dioceses initially numbered twelve for 100+ provinces (120 in the Notitia Dignitatum), each headed by a vicarius i. e. a deputy to a Praefectus praetorio ("Praetorian Prefect"). The Italian diocese had two vicars, one in Rome for the region south of the capital and for the islands, and one normally stationed in Milan for northern Italy and the Alpine regions south of the Danube as far as Vienna (Vindabona) and the Istria peninsula (when the prefect moved to the diocese of Pannonia, the vicar went to Milan: which neatly illustrates the relationship and reason for vicars, Jones, op. cit. p. 373). In 321 or by 327 the diocese of Moesia was divided into Dacia and Macedonia. In 370 or 380 Egypt was detached from the diocese of the Oriens (Cilicia, Cyprus, Syria, and Palestine) to be a diocese for reasons of establish more direct fiscal accountability with the capital and secure the food supply of Constantinople with a rapidly growing population. The large size of the dioceses preclude the idea that these could have directly administered the overall administration of regions with such a small staff (" diocese were less geographical administrative entities than administrative conglomerates which a new authority should supervise governors and coordinate over all regional activities,"^[55] with their small staffs. Dioceses were for controlling the lower ends of the imperial bureaucracy and keeping an eye on the doings of the SL and RP. For the most part administration, first instance judicial matters, and tax collection were left to the governors and a vast number of minor and mid-rank officials at the local level in the 2,000 city states with their surrounding territories. The largest diocese by number of provinces, not area, was the Diocese of the East, which included 20 provinces when Egypt was part of it, while the smallest, the Diocese of Britain, comprised only 4 provinces.^[56] the typical staff complement was 300, and 600 in Oriens. The range of diocesan activity reflects the narrow concerns and capacity of the ancient state – absent are the large-scale social programs of the modern Western industrial states – it was directed towards matters of justice, revenue collection and all other business of government.^[57] Above all defense of the empire was the primary concern, and fiscal the means to provide it.

The statutory complement of the diocesan office was 300 (600 in Oriens; and 200 in Asia probably a scribal error) dived into the senior judicial branch and the financial branches. The head of the office and the senior heads of staff, the senior assistants and other permanent career staff would have provided the expertise, continuity, stability and institutional memory for the proper conduct of business. These were very small offices in numbers to conduct administrative oversight of large regions with from 2–12 million inhabitants: the primary duty was oversight and regulation of the imperial administrative apparatus and the collection and analysis of data pertinent to this endeavor for use within the diocese or for the highest echelon. The smallness has to be put into context: the diocese's task was to control the imperial administration, the superstructure of the Roman State, not actually do the vast work of administration which was done at the municipal level by several thousand cities and towns under the immediate supervision of governors. Praefectiani and vicariani, the staff of prefects and vicars, were supposed and ordered to stay away from direct participation in tax collection, the former sent down to put pressure on the governors and the latter to collect arrears.^[58] In regard to the purpose of all this massive effort the main tasks of the imperial administration were to finance defense, collect revenue to support the State and provide for justice. Social services such as they existed were a local matter supplemented by imperial largesse.

The prefects' "obtained their financial information and collected their taxes through their vicars and the provincial governors, Jones. op. cit. p. 450. The annual budgets were composed using the diocese as the unit of measurement with allowances for provincial differences.^[59] The financial branch of the prefecture was organized by diocese subdivided into provinces (the structure of the prefecture Oriens is the only one fully known, but is thought they all were organized similarly if not exactly). Financial correspondence was handled by the curae epistularum for each diocese with their corresponding official in the diocese (the usurpation of this function by the tractatores, accountants of the provincial branches in the East, late in the 5th century is indicative of diocesan decline).

The prefects were able to delegate much detailed financial work to the vicars with their attached fiscal departments ^[60] as was the case in judicial matters. Since they did not compose budgets, the departments were processing masses of information for the use of the vicars and prefects. Information collected from the Codex Theodosianus indicates that dioceses were tracking tax matters of all sort all sorts: delinquencies, tax evasion, fraud, financial reports; illegal transfer of exemption from liturgical obligations and supplemental tax demands to private property by claiming these were leased Crown estates which had exempt status; tax remissions, revisions, reassessments, and reallocations; the auditing of provincial tax returns; and reviewing the integrity of army roster and requisition returns (initially done by the governors and army accountants.^[10] The vicariani (diocesan staff) were supposed to act as collectors of arrears (compulsories) only. They were forbidden participation in tax collection which was a local responsibility.^[61] The African diocesan office kept copies of the Res Privata tax returns and delinquencies.^[62] That year the vicar and the proconsul was ordered to forward copies of these to the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata offices in Ravenna regarding a massive proposed remission of arrears on imperial property in Byzacena and the proconsular province. Most financial matters would not have required litigation: executive orders, investigations and administrative decision would have sufficed since one of the primary duties of vicars was to enforce imperial orders, regulations, protocols and procedures. General tax remissions were rare from the 360s to the early 5th century due to imperial financial duress – there is evidence though spotty that some dioceses were more directly engaged in collecting current and back taxes owed the prefectures and directly supervising governors than monitoring, auditing and investigating these matters.^[63]

Although there is no way to know in fact the ratio of judicial to fiscal business - litigation was expensive in the imperial courts - which probably varied from region to region the more than 250 or so references in the Codex Theodosianus and Novels 313 to 472 A.D. to vicars and their staffs (many often couched in documents addressed to other officials) between years 313–472 suggest a plurality on judicial issues.^[64] The increased number of entries referring to vicariate involvement in financial matters dates from the 360s on though the greater oversight role dates from the 320s and may be attributed to duress in imperial finances - selection of laws by the compilers is lopsided, "bountiful but deceptive, because of the illusion of comprehensiveness it projects".^[65]

The location of Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata offices in almost every one of the diocesan see cities (except in Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and one of the Pannonian provinces), the presence of the Master of the Offices' appointee as head of diocesan office (the MO was Minister of State Security, Administration and Communications), sometimes a general and a governor facilitated the conduct of regional state business. The conglomeration of offices made the vicars' task of exercising control of the administration easier, as "ringmaster, but not as sole arbiter."^[10] The diocesan see cities were, therefore, in the essential aspects mini-simulacra of the top layer of the administration minus the palace staff. They were focal points of information gathering and processing as regional command centers. They 'clamped' together the major parts of the administration at that level. They were the expression of the Constantinian Dynasty's "regionally-based centralism."^[2]

Vicars

The creation of permanent vicars 'outsourced' the prefects' authority to a set of mini-prefects, Hendy, M.F., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450, Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 375–377, ISBN 978-0-521-08852-7. The vicars were the only civilian official to have superior authority within a diocese absent a praetorian prefect or emperor (or the prefect of Rome whose extraordinary jurisdiction included all Italy and the Islands until 357 with the vicar of Italy and the vicar in Rome, Jones, op. cit. p. 481-482). Vicars are characterized as mini-prefects, Hendy, ibid, and by another definition "...seem to have deputized for the praetorian prefects in all their manifold functions," Jones op. cit. p. 47) and "duplicated" the work of prefects (Wieworowski, op. cit. p. 301). However, care must be taken to differentiate the two officials in practice. However, to state that vicars duplicated the prefect's competencies is not quite correct since the vicars did not perform the same set of judicial and financial duties in the same way as the prefects did, since they labored under tighter restrictions on their discretionary powers, possessed superior, not supreme authority, and were not policy-makers or originators of law.

Vicars of dioceses originated from the post of ad hoc deputy commander of the Praetorian Guard, the agens vices praefectorum praetorio. They substituted for prefects absent from Rome. Vicars were of a lower rank than perfects and subordinate to them but retained some autonomy in judicial matters: their verdicts could not be overturned except on a successful appeal. An original source states the vicars "assume a part of the prefecture," CTh. 1, 5, 7 (377) and Cassiodorus in the early 6th century repeats this in the Institutes I VI 15; and adds that the vicar's jurisdiction is proper to himself because it is given by the emperor. The vicars was not a mere delegate or gopher for the prefect. They were the Ordinaries within their dioceses. There was an element of collegiality between the two officials. On the other hand in practice they were subordinate. In 328 Constantine refers to them as "your vicars," addressed to Aemilianus, praetorian prefect in Italy (CTh. 11, 16, 4). The vicars (and governors) were therefore seen as organs of the prefecture, “..werden sei in den Informations- und Kontrollung von Prafeckur zu Statthaltern miteinbezogen. Sie erscheien dabei als ein Organ der Prafektur, als dieser zugeteilte und mit ihr zusammenarbeitende Beamte vicarii tui…”, Migl, op. cit. p. 62. A comparable but not exact situation existed between the Prefect of the Annona and the Urban Prefect of Rome. The latter was subordinate to the former. Nonetheless Valentinian I and Gratian warned prefects that, although this was the case and proper deference had to be shown to them by the prefects of the Annona, this did not mean that they or their staffs should micro-manage the prefect of the Annona but allow him to perform his responsibilities of getting provisions from the ports of Rome to the city after which the urban prefects took over (Geoffrey Rickman, The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome, 1980, ISBN 0-19-814838-0, “Great care was to be taken that the staff of the city prefect should not become involved in the minutiae of the annona organization,” p. 201. Jones, op. cit. p. 690 quotes CTh. 1, 6, 5 (365) and 7 (379) in which the emperors attempted to demarcate the roles of the UP and PAR as a “model of tactful equivocation, p. 375.” Kelly says the laws are “ambiguous and overlapping administrative competences,” Later Roman bureaucracy, p. 171, note 45. Rickman states “it seems clear that often relations between them were cordial. It was certainly to their mutual advantage for them to do so,” ibid. p. 201; the price of the expansion of the PA's powers was subordination to the prefect, ibid p. 200; the vicar of Rome was subordinate to the Prefect of Italy was responsible for the pork supply of 25 pounds, 5 pounds a month to one third of the population of 450,000 in 452).

Substitutes of prefects first appear during the Severan Dynasty, 193–235. Beginning in the late 290s other vice-prefects appear performing duties outside the capital (while others continued to command the remaining Guard units in Rome): one was stationed in Tingis (Tangiers) in 298 to order the affairs of the province after a revolt was suppressed by the emperor Maximian, another was in Numidia and Tripolitania in 303 Africa ordering affairs there, one in 298 in Egypt with Diocletian after the suppression of a revolt there, and another in Asia Minor in 303 to head up the persecution of Christians. Four more are known before 312, two of whom were in Egypt and Asia Minor. They are little more than names or a title. Although not much is known about them or their activities, vice-prefects appear to have been 'trouble-shooters' or commissioners to put the affairs of a region right, a role that the diocesan vicars perhaps brought with them and retained even after they were 'domesticated' by being institutionalized as the heads of the main governance district until the end of the 4th century or early 5th.

The ad hoc type of vice-prefect was fazed out in the 320s (but the title remained the official one as seen from the epigraphic evidence -'vicarius' is a convenient abbreviation among many, 'vicaria praefectura' being one). They were gradually replaced by companions of provinces, comites provinciarum, a class of personal commissioners Constantine created in 316 to carry out various specific tasks or reforms in the provinces especially in the years 324–337 (Jacek Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 72) when he was sole emperor trying to strengthen his grip on the regions he had gained after the defeat of Licinius: the area Thrace and eastwards that became the Prefecture of the East. Some 20 are recorded in six of thirteen dioceses (Moesia was divided into Dacia and Macedonia by 327): Spain, Africa, Macedonia, Asia, Oriens and the province of Achaea. The consensus now among scholars is that comites replaced rather than served alongside diocesan vicars. The last known was a Count of the Spains in 340. The title, comes, for reasons unknown, became standard for the vicar of the Orient. From then on the regular vicars governed dioceses without 'rivals' (cf. for an overview, Wiewiorowski, op. cit. English Edition, 2016, pp. 52–74; A. H. M. Jones, LRE pp. 104–105; Clemence, Dupont, Constantin et Les Dioceses,' Studi in Onore de. G. Donatuti, vol. 3, 1973, pp. 309–336).

After the 'demise' of the comites the emperors resorted to sending fairly high-ranking palatine-level staff of the Prefecture, Treasury, Crown Estates to look into affairs in the provinces, standing practise. More use was made of the Masters' of the Offices agents, the agentes in rebus (men of state business). They acquired a sinister reputation under Constantius II, 337-361 as spies (Jones, LRE, pp. 128, 449-452, 457, 586). The Masters stationed with the emperors in the palaces were titular commanders of the Imperial Guard and heads of the imperial secretariats, the scrinia. The word 'officia' in their title refers to offices of the prefecture, not of the scrinia. The Masters had no control over the Sacrae Largitionesand the Res Privata(Giardina, Andrea, Aspetti della burocrazia nel basso imperio, 1977, pp. 54–68). These ministries reported directly to the emperor or to the prefects.

The vicar's competencies were not finally and fully determined only towards the end of Constantine's reign in 337. This emperor from the beginning clearly showed his preference for the new officials in the regions by communicating directly with the vicars in Africa rather with governors there during the Donatist Controversies of the second decade of the 4th century the obvious explanation being that the official on the spot with overall authority judicially would take it from there in dealing with the local situation. The responsibility enhancement given to these intermediate-level officials after he became sole emperor in 324 shows his preference. This was matched by his use of counts of provinces to replace vicars when performance did not meet expectations in particular since they were chosen from among his closest associates. His sons continued his preference for a diocesan-centered administrative policy but discontinued the experiment with counts, but the title was given to high-ranking agents on special assignment, among others who received the honor, of the master of the offices.

Vicars were not part of the imperial bureaucracy which was termed 'militia inermis' – 'unarmed military service' (those who were enrolled as stipendiaries in a fictional legion, Adiutrix I). Their post was a dignitas, an honor, bestowed on private citizens. Governors and vicars usually served one year terms or some cases served for 8 months to 2 years. Unlike during the Principate when governors and other officials brought their own staffs with them, as if they were domestics, officials of the 'Dominate' found permanent staffs waiting for them (a development that began in second century), Slootjes. op. cit. pp. 28-30, the exception being the heads of the diocesan offices from the early 340s, who were senior agents of the Master of the Offices (the Minister of State Security). They brought their own squad of security officers with them (cf. below 'Diocesan Heads of Office).

The appointments of 'amateurs' to head the imperial administration is often regarded by the ancient sources as revolving-door magistracies handed out to persons of higher social rank without experience in governing which suggests that the men appointed were basically unfit. Ancient authors loved to point the finger at bumbling magistrates. There are reports of legal advisors apprising ignorant governors of the law. No such report exists for vicars. However, it would be mistaken to believe that the higher levels of the imperial bureaucracy was composed entirely of amateur incompetents. Analysis of 330+ entries in the Prosopography of the Roman Empire (those with sufficient information) reveals that most men had had several years experience – not necessarily sequential without breaks – in a variety of junior posts as legal counsels (assessores), some had experience on the financial side which was 'not fashionable' and less favored than the judicial/administrative but tended to be more of actual career to the holders, and one or more governorships before appointment as vicar. The 'careers' of most ended with the vicariate - a significant minority, however, went on to serve in the highest palatine offices whether as proconsuls, urban or as praetorian prefects, counts of the two fiscal ministries or as master of he offices (the holders of these latter three offices typically served two or more years limiting the number of candidates for these posts).

Vicars were handicapped in the beginning by having been 'dropped' into a pre-existing web of a somewhat porous "administrative system that was not rationally planned and lacked and clearly-defined hierarchy of offices" (Jones, op. cit. 377; cf. Kelly Ruling the Later Roman Empire, pp. 186–231, "...blurred spectrum of responsibilities;" "...waste of time caused by duplication, cross-checking, the transfer of personnel, the short tenure of posts, the uncertainties of appointment and advancement, and the arbitrary division of tasks..." p. 229; T. F. Carney, Bureaucracy in Traditional Society: Roman-Byzantine Bureaucracies viewed from Within, 1971). Constantine tried to disentangle the web of overlapping and unclear lines of authority by making departmental competencies more defined in the years 325–331 but the system was never more than partially rationalized and remained a patchwork (Jones, op. cit. p. 377). Constantine's re-alignments placed the vicars more clearly at the apex of the diocesan administration.

When created the vicars were of the same rank, the equestrian grade perfectissimus, as their regional counterparts of the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata and most governors. In 326 vicars were raised to the senatorial rank of clarissimus (Pallu de Lessert, Vicaires et Comdtes D'Afrique: De Diocletien A L'Invasion Vandale, 1892, pp. 74–74 believes elevation to senatorial rank occurred around 320, “Je crois avoir montre, dans l’introduction, contrairement a l’opinion commune, que cette mesure parait remontier a l’annee 320 environ;” Delmaire, op. cit. p. 39 “depuis” from CIL 1407 and at the latest CTh. 8, 10 2; the prefect of the Annona of Rome was given senatorial rank in the same year; and it has been argued that the palatine chiefs of the Sacrae Largitiones, Res Privata and the MO were all made comites, imperial companions, as part of an administrative consolidation and competencies specialization program at the palatine level which strengthened the institution of central administration (Kelly, Age of Constantine, pp. 190–191). These measures were taken Constantine was in Italy after his defeat of Licinius in Bithynia in November 324 and the decision to found a city named after himself the following year. In 372 vicars were elevated a step higher to spectabilis where they remained when Valentinian I sorted out all higher officials into three classes within which there rankings by precedence. From the 360s the regional comptrollers of the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata (and palace officials) were being elevated to senatorial status as grade-inflation picked up speed. Further elevation of senators is a sign that their influence had peaked as central headquarter officials surpassed began to surpass them in rank at the end of the 4th and in the early 5th centuries as centralization picked speed. Nonetheless the vicars remained the senior ranking civilian officials with highest authority in the dioceses until their demise.

The vicars exercised direct control over the various components of the prefecture, i.e. the provinces and municipalities; and very limited and targeted control over the Treasury and Crown Estates which were independent ministries (though the agents of these ministries had to work through the vicars and governors on matters that pertained to ordinary provincials and could not issue any order, policy-matter decision et cetera that would affect provincials prior to being approved by the emperor or a prefect). The vicars had no control over palace staffs or the master of the offices' agents within dioceses. The MO(s) was head of state security for administration and communication and he (they) were housed with the emperor(s).

The vicars' control methods varied: they were the only official with superior (appeal) authority within a diocese. Post-328 or 329 all fiscal debt appeals from the Treasury and Crown Estates went to them until 385 when an alternative direct route to the counts of these departments was reopened, Jones, LRE, p. 481-82; Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 707–708, possibly as a measure to expedite settlements. All criminal and civil cases involving civilians or the military were already under their jurisdiction (or to the prefects, proconsuls, and urban prefect(s) in their spheres of jurisdiction. Criminal suits involving senators were removed from the urban prefect of Rome in 317 and transferred to the prefecture. Civil cases of senators as plaintiff were removed in 364. In 376 civil cases were restored to the prefect of Rome south of the Apennines and in the islands and criminal cases within a 100-mile radius of the city, Jones, LRE, p. 490-91. In 355 criminal cases of soldiers as defendants were transferred to Courts Martial and civil cases in 413 in the East (in practice this may have occurred and Theodosius II was only recognizing it - dispatching soldiers accused of civil infractions to a provincial court was highly inconvenient), Jones, op. cit. pp. 487–88. Vicars had first instance jurisdiction: they could not overturn the verdict of lower court so first instance allowed them to intervene in a lower court should something appear amiss. They had a right to insist that regulations, protocols, instructions and orders be followed, but they could not enforce discipline over the staffs of other ministries: they could contact with their regional counterparts about the behavior of their staff (after all almost all the regional heads were located in the same city or town^[10]). Paradoxically their power was reinforced by the fact that they had little discretionary authority: they could not change or order a census, annual tax demands, issue orders for supplemental demands, grant tax remissions, rebates, tax holidays, or change rates, assessments and allocations of these (they were spread out within tax districts), or change liturgical demands: they were supposed to carry orders from above and manage the diocese.^[10] The removal of some authority did not greatly affect the vicars who were used by the powerful prefects in the late 4th and early 5th who were intent on getting more mileage out of the existing system and encroaching on the Treasury and Crown Estates which resisted not without some success into the 440s, Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 703–714).

The Decline of the dioceses

There appear to be a number of reasons for the decline of dioceses. First from the beginning and even mores so from 325 the vicars were placed in charge of a very complex and cumbersome tax collection and distribution system. This situation began to change at the end of the 4th century as the commutation the prefectures' in kind collection began to be commuted more and more to gold payment. What was the point of the separate Treasury of the SL once most the tax of the prefectures was commuted, Delamire, op. cit. pp. 703–714.

Commutation had begun very slowly under Constantine I and his successors. It picked up speed with the conversion of Res Privata rents to gold in 366 and with the taxes of the prefecture towards the end of the century. It would be a major factor in the decline of the dioceses whose major fiscal task had been coordinating a complex and cumbersome financial system based on the collection and distribution of in kind products. This said commutation had always been was resorted to in certain circumstances as payment in gold or silver was always more convenient (as in buying supplies locally for delivery nearby rather than having to collect and transport these a great distance by road, an expensive undertaking - if possible water transport was used). The process of commutation to gold was completed mostly in the West by 425 and in the East by the last decades of the century.

Another factor which contributed to the decline of vicars was the placement of permanent provincial-level tax collection officials directly under the prefects from the mid-5th century instead of relying on officials sent on annual or ad hoc visitations from central headquarters. By-passed by the prefects (they of course could communicate directly with anyone they wanted to at any time) the vicars' services and dioceses increasingly redundant. Also the greater use of direct appeal from governors to prefect and regulations that prohibited vicars' courts from accepting cases about a certain value marginalized their courts. The vicars' watchdog fiscal role continued for the rest of the 5th century in the East as seen in CJ 10, 13, 4 (468) which instructs them to make sure that the revenues of the Sacrae Largitiones were not reallocated to the prefecture by the governors and the prefects' agents. It is one of the few references to them in the East post-450 A.D. which suggests that they had lost most of their importance except in Oriens and Egypt.

The chronology of diocesan rise in importance and decline can be tracked. The trajectory was not the same for all dioceses for a variety of reasons: each diocese was faced by differing circumstances. There is upward trajectory in importance until the very early fifth century followed by a very gradual decline till 440 and then a more rapid declination post-440.^[74] The decline was not uniform across the board - there is indication that the vicars of Asia and Rome were losing influence. Pontus, Macedonia, Thrace and Dacia may have declined due to their proximity to Constantinople the see of the emperor, a praetorian and an urban prefect. The vicars of Italy never common because of the presence of the prefect in Milan and later in Ravenna disappeared. Britain was abandoned in 410. Parts of Gaul and Spain were occupied by tribes as was Pannonia. The Vicar of the Seven Provinces in southern Gaul (who also managed the Diocese of Gaul) worked effectively with the praetorian prefect (located from Trier to Arles in 407) to maintain control as much as possible and wherever it existed until the very end of Roman rule in 475.^[75] The diocese of the Spains may have even been re-established around 418 after the Visigoth's decimation of the tribal invaders;^[76] and may have exercised control over the peninsula except the far northwest (occupied by the Sueves) until 438 after the Vandals' departure for Africa in 429.^[77] If so, the attempt to recreat the diocese provides evidence for the highest imperial authorities' continuing positive attitude about having a presence with superior authority in the region.^[10] The diocese of Africa was disrupted by the Vandal invasion of 429 and did not survive the peace treaties with the them in 435 and 442.

The dioceses as remained from 450 slipped into steeper decline and redundancy as did their regional counterparts of the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata. The vicars' courts were increasingly bypassed in favor of direct appeal to prefects; their financial responsibilities atrophied.^[78] The vicar in Rome continued to perform important functions for the city, southern Italy and the Islands on behalf of the prefect in Ravenna during the post-imperial period under Odoacer, 476–493, and the Ostrogothic Kingdom 493–536. Theodosius, vice-regent of Italy for the emperors in Constantinople even restored a praetorian prefect for the rump prefecture of Gaul and provided him a vicar, Gemellus, who undertook two commissions involving taxation, one concerning the army and two on judicial cases.^[79] The vicars of Oriens, Egypt and Rome which continued to function at a higher level because of the important duties given them: the remaining two Balkan dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia and the Anatolian dioceses of Pontus and Asia slipped into a state of morbidity.^[80] The dominance and proximity of Constantinople, the seat of the emperor, prefect and urban prefect and changes in taxation collection methods, judicial procedures, and governance made the Balkan and Asian dioceses redundant.^[81][10]

Regarding dioceses as functionally ineffectual and corrupted the Emperor Justinian I abolished the remaining ones in the East (Thrace disappeared early in the reign of Anastasius I 491-519). Asia, Pontus, Dacia and Macedonia were abolished in 535 and Egypt in 539 (the southern part of this diocese was from 468 governed by a dux with civil authority, a reversal of the principle established by Diocletian and completed by Constantine I that civil and military spheres be strictly separated. Justinian gave as motives inability to perform their financial functions, patronage and selling of offices as reasons for abolition, stock accusations even if true. Justinian installed a praetorian prefect and not a vicar (the prefects and a vicar were restored for Italy). In 545 and 548 he restored the dioceses of Pontus and Asia and small Oriens. The new-stule vicars there were given vastly increased powers over all other civilian and military officials. The remnants of the intermediate tier finally withered away in the early 7th century. A truncated Eastern Roman Empire from 637 A.D. had no need for it - direct central control through provinces and the development of the military Theme system was the order of the day.^[82]

The Value of Dioceses

The vicars and dioceses were a product of the perceived administrative needs of their times as initiated by Diocletian which was developed and modified by Constantine in the years 325-329. The diocesan see cities for over 125 years were centers of regional administrative control and oversight. They were major players in governance: they were administrative hubs and foci for reporting and processing information the government wanted, Dioceses mirrored at the intermediate level the major components and administrative competencies of the top echelon, However, the functioning of the diocese was a restricted version as it lacked the policy-making authority. The vicars themselves can be regarded as mid-level senior management.

They diocesan see cities were major destination points for the processing and transmission of information to the palatine level from governors; reception destinations of information, court cases and reports from the regional and provincial agents of the Treasury and Crown Estates,^[83] and from the municipalities. Having masses of information from the lower levels of the administration audited and processed at the regional level was intended to save upper echelon time and effort from having to deal with incomplete reports, court dockets and financial reports - it may not have; it could also hinder response time if vital information was held up or the system jammed. For the system, such as it was to work, regularity and predictability were the keys: for irregularities and emergencies direct access to the palace was always left open. The top officials who were busy with their own concerns wanted as much State business as possible taken care of and presented to them properly completed in particular considering the great distances involved. This made sense. However, in the East once Constantinople became a proper capital in 359, and the major residence of Theodosius I, and the permanent imperial residence afterwards, the proximity of the vicars in Thessaloniki, Nicomedia and Ephesus made little sense as a result of factors mentioned above.

The diocesan see cities were the 'base-camp' for 500–1000 staffers together of a vicar, comptroller of the Sacrae Largitiones, manager of the Res Privata (from the 350s titled comptrollers), governor, agents of the masters of the offices, and more than not the headquarters of an army general. Changed conditions in the 5th century – the drift towards a two rather than three-tier imperial administration, commutation of taxes, and direct appeals – resulted in dioceses taking the back rather than the driver's seat which they had had during the 4th century.

As for the vicars, they did not come in for repeated imperial attacks on governors, the staff of the Sacrae Largitiones and Res Privata and the lower rungs of the imperial bureaucracy. Perhaps by the time they attained the vicariate they were know quantities; and or they were 'too close to the fire' to risk violating the trust placed on them. The lack of evidence does not mean that there were no bad men who served as vicars (Maximinus who as a barrister carried out a witch-hunt in Rome in the 360s was appointed vicar of Rome afterwards and prefect of the Gauls, Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, Liber XXVIII); and Seronatus perhaps the last vicar of the Seven Provinces of Gaul in the late 460s early 470s was regarded at corrupt and treasonous(Sidonius Appollinaris a letter dated 468 has harsh words for Seronatus whom he accuses of maladministration, mistreatment of prisoners, excessive taxation and venality and offering provinces to the barbarians, Mathisen, R. W., Roman Aristrocrats in Barbarian Gaul, 1995, pp. 12, 84 ISBN 978-0-292-758063; Harries, Jill, Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome 406-485, pp. 126, 224-5 ISBN 978-0-198-144724 on Seronatus; and Prospography of the Later Roman Empire, Vol. I, pp. 996–96.

From the beginning the Romans ran their empire 'on the cheap.' The existence of the vicars is in its own way an example of this continuing mind set - rather than address the issue and expensive option of running the empire with permanent officials stationed in the cities, the government tried to do it by upping the efficiency of the provincial level by dividing it, packing on responsibilities on governors and supervising them by officials on an intermediate level. In this way it continued the time-worn practices of using unpaid locals - the city councils and influential rich people who chosen annually to supervise the tax collections and fulfill liturgical duties - to do their work for them. In this way they could avoid having to create a vast permanent salaried civil service to govern.^[84] The 4th century saw an improvement in the imperial bureaucracy - it was more professional, free-born, salaried and pensioned and underwent a great expansion from 10,000 to 30–40,000 from the end of the 3rd to the 4th century (35–40% of the civil servants staffed the palatine and diocesan levels in 15 cities). The imperial bureaucracy was concentrated in 125 provincial and diocesan see cities and, therefore, was a distant presence to most inhabitants of the empire. In addition to the changes Anastasius' (491-518) placement of imperial tax officials in cities (491-518) further damaged the already weakened post of vicar.

It has been said the history of Roman is the history of a State. The dioceses were extensions of this States central power. They were part of matrix of administrative links that marshalled resources to keep the State function and fulfilling a major goal - the defense and maintenance of the Empire. As regions were lost in the 5th century in the West resources were lost and the result was a shrinking tax base to support the professional Roman Army. As more was lost the West entered into a death spiral. Vigorous measures, better decisions, societal unity and decisive victories at critical moments in Spain in 422 against the Vandals, against the Visigoths in SW Gaul, again against the Vandals in the years 430-31, success instead of fiascos against them in 442 and 468, and in Spain in 460 when they burned Majorian's fleet, might have turned the situation around.

The tribal invasions and movements disrupted the Roman imperial administration itself in ways it had not before (because the Romans chose or decided not to erase the invaders or push them back over the borders); and these disturbances and presences got in the way of its ability to marshal resources needed from the locals to protect them and the Empire. As the Roman State withered away the superstructure wound down or disappeared. The locals had to manage the best they could with the new managers as they took over. Remaining were the provincial and municipal administrations under the new Germanic rulers which continued more or less as before in most areas but in an ever more attenuated form.

The imperial bureaucracy has received a very bad press as venal, corrupt and inefficient as if no honest persons were in its employ. On the whole they seem to have been an unambitious and unenterprising class, Jones, op. cit. 605. Despite all its "manifest failings," the imperial bureaucracy had played a vital role in the preservation of the empire together. The permanent civil servants knew the procedure and the regulations far better than their transient chiefs, who were often aristocrats chosen for no better reason than birth and wealth,"..."Civil servants thus acted as a check on the rapacity and corruption of their chiefs,"..."Nor were all officials entirely lacking in enterprise and public spirit," ^[85]. Indeed in the West they administation went down fighting despite all odds, and when and where it could provided the administrative, legal and financial skills to the new tribal owners who were woefully lacking in knowledge and governing skills. It has been said that it was not that the invaders defeated the Romans but rather they lost.

People have debated for centuries the causes for the 5th century collapse while also looking for causes that contributed to the debacle in the late 4th: the Romans seemed to be unwilling to commit the resources necessary to defeat the interlopers; they lost their war-like instincts; hoped that they could be contained (a policy of accommodation), suffered bad luck on the battlefield, were hobbled by internal divisions, especially civil wars between rivals for supreme power, and by the failure to maintain a separate Roman army in numbers sufficient to defeat the tribes within and keep out others outside the borders - The Western Empire went and with them the prefect and their vicars by the end of the 6th century in their last hold out in the West, Italy^[86]; "In the west, the people of Italy had long since lost the tradition of bearing arms, and when the expensive army could no longer be maintained warlords with private armies appeared who suited their own interests. As the soldiers who had sustained the burden of defending and patrolling the empire melted away much of the infrastructure collapsed with them," Brian Campbell, War and Society in Imperial Rome 31 BC-AD 284, 2002, p. 154 ISBN 0-415-27882-1.

In the eastern parts of Roman Empire, dominated by Greek language and common use of Greek terminology, the vicarius was called hyparchus or exarch.^[87]

Introduction of the term in ecclesiastical usage

The ecclesiastical diocesan system was formally organized in the early 4th century very soon after the so-called Edict of Milan of March 313 recognized freedom of religion. The leadership of the Churches based the new ecclesiastical administrative units and the hierarchy on Roman arrangements (and architecture for their churches). Oddly the word 'diocese' came to refer to the province of a Church headed by the bishop, the diocesan head rather to a larger regional unit made up of provinces which became the archdiocese in the West and metropolitan in the East.

As the Western Empire disappeared in the 5th and 6th centuries more political power often came to be vested in the spiritual offices of the bishops in each region and was a natural consequence of the collapse of the supra-provincial administrative structures of the Roman State. The senatorial aristocracy, deprived of the many imperial civil offices which it regarded as its birthright disappeared as the Empire declined and became smaller. They, especially in the provinces, continued in many places to serve as local authority to complement the authority wielded by the Church; or they became bishops themselves. The remnants of this aristocratic meritocracy of service to the State died out in the 7th century or were absorbed into the warrior leader class who served 'barbarian' kings - this new type of aristocrat became the 'ancestors' of the European nobility. The effort to put Europe back together became largely the effort of few enlightened rulers and bishops upon whom the mantel of Empire in spite of its manifest faults had fallen: beginning in the 6th century the Catholic Church organized by dioceses, and the only wholly literate part of society left, led the counter-attack beginning to preserve and advance what was good from the Roman legacy. However, the administrative collapse of the Roman state went hand in hand with an economic one so that the standard of living reckoned by some scholars equal to Europe's in 1700 - was halved in the West between 400 and 600 A.D., a period of massive dislocations and catastrophes (and not just a 'period of transition'). Except for the Levant and the region around Constantinople it was an economic mess that took centuries to recover from in spite of academic efforts in some quarters to smooth over the catastrophe.

The Eastern Empire maintained a civilian administration which had as a principal ally the ecclesiastical powers of the Orthodox Church: the two together were the two aspect of the doctrine of Caesaropapism of State Church of the Roman Empire. The Ottoman Empire destroyed the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire and other Christian Balkan kingdoms in the course of the 14th ad 15th centuries (see Christianity and Judaism in the Ottoman Empire). The eastern bishops were given control over their respective flocks to administer on behalf of the Ottomans assumed political roles. In modern times many an ancient diocese though later divided among several dioceses has preserved the boundaries of a long-vanished Roman administrative division.

See also

• Diocese, the ecclesiastical territory originally corresponding to a civil diocese
• Exarch, equivalent for vicarius, in Ancient Greek terminology

References

Sources

• Meyendorff, John (1989). Imperial unity and Christian divisions: The Church 450-680 A.D. The Church in history. 2. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.
• Ostrogorsky, George (1956). History of the Byzantine State. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Rees, Roger (2004). Diocletian and the Tetrarchy. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

 Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Rome § History". Encyclopædia Britannica. 23 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 655–684.