Galeria Valeria and Prisca

[brainout]

Galeria Valeria and Prisca (of Diocletian) -- why didn't anyone support them?

This is my first post in Roman Army Forum. Thank you for a great forum! I couldn't find any past posts on this topic, so make a new one, here. I hope it's not annoying. Please delete it if you find it inappropriate.

Gist: I'm trying to chase down the backstory on these ladies, and keep getting conflicting data. I would have thought the Tetrarchy and their competitors would clamor to support these ladies. They seem to have become hostages under the 'protection' of Galerius (after all, he was married to G.Valeria on condition of Caesarship back in 293); then in 311, Galerius dies so they are under Licinius; but why would Licinius want to kill them? Were they causing trouble? Seems like their presence alive, would help him solidify his claims.

But no; apparently they flee to Daia, and when Valeria won't marry him, he robs and exiles them to Syria. Whether Diocletian really begged for their return, I wonder. And where was Constantine in all this? Seems like he was trying to curry favor temporarily with Licinius to avoid war? Maxentius and Daia were cozying up to each other at this time, too.

So Valeria, Prisca and Candidianus are left to fend for themselves, the enemies of all? Doesn't make sense. I can understand Licinius wanting to kill off potential rivals; I can't understand Constantine not offering refuge.

Any info y'all have to share? Thank you for your time!

[Nathan Ross]

I would have thought the Tetrarchy and their competitors would clamor to support these ladies.

That, I think, was the problem. With their links to Diocletian and Galerius they had great currency within the status-wrangles of the (eastern) tetrarchy, but this currency could only be secured by marriage. Valeria (and her mother, by extension) was a very virtuous woman, and still in mourning for Galerius - she didn't want to marry anybody. Lactantius implies that both women were Christians (de mortibus persecutorum, Ch.XV), but I don't know whether Christianity at this date had a prohibition against the marriage of widows, or whether it was just a personal conviction.

They seem to have become hostages under the 'protection' of Galerius

I don't think there was any compulsion about this. Valeria was Galerius' wife, and he was the paramount emperor in the east and direct successor of Diocletian. From her lengthy mourning after his death, we might assume that she was sincere in her marriage commitment to him.

Galerius dies so they are under Licinius; but why would Licinius want to kill them?

The suggestion is that the women fled from the (unmarried) Licinius as they believed he wanted to marry Valeria. Daia seemed a better bet as he was married already - but he too was aware of the potential credit in a marriage tie (or was just a libidinous beast, as Lactantius makes out!):

"After the death of her husband, [Valeria] had repaired to Daia, because she imagined that she might live with more security in his dominions than elsewhere, especially as he was a married man; but the flagitious creature became instantly inflamed with a passion for her." (Lactantius, Ch. XXXIX)

So, although she refused to secure herself in marriage to either tetrarchic contender, Valeria's potential for such advantageous matchmaking remained. It was therefore necessary for Daia (whatever the state of his bruised ego) to confine her and make sure she wasn't able to go off and wed herself to any rival. If she returned to Diocletian, he would be given a valuable asset in future negotiations, and despite their reverence for his name, the contending emperors would not have been eager to surrender any potential leverage that might be used against them.

And where was Constantine in all this?

Constantine, I think, was never particularly keen on stressing his unity with the tetrarchic system - he only did so initially as a matter of expediency. The quarrels of the eastern emperors over the legacy of Diocletian and Galerius only suited his ambitions, and there would be no purpose in him removing a source of their contention. Besides, at or around this time Constantine was destroying the paired statues of Maximian and Diocletian anyway - clearly the memory of the previous generation of tetrarchs meant nothing to him, and the fate of their relicts would not have concerned him.

There is also the possibility that at least some of these events may have been motivated by emotional issues that generally fall beneath the radar of pious imperial histories. Perhaps Valeria and her mother fled from Licinius simply because they disliked him? Perhaps they thought that Daia might be more sympathetic? Lactantius is (at least initially) pro-Licinius, and so portrays Daia as a ravening monster. What the actual state of personal relations between these imposing figures might have been remains a matter for conjecture.

All quotes from here: Lactantius - de mortibus

[Robert Vermaat]

I agree with Nathan.

Don't forget that the chaos of the third century was still on everybody's mind - everybody who could secure a marriage with any member of the Imperial family or even the last Imperial family could potentially gain support with at least part of the military. It was a shocking but understandable act that after the death of Constantine, every potential rival of his sons was wiped out, even the widow of Constantine Chlorus.

[brainout]

Thank you, Nathan. I didn't know of your reply until just now, I apologize. I don't know how to set up the account to immediately notify me of replies. During the interim, I had looked into Zosimus, Lactantius, etc. in Greek and Latin, checking against the English, and derived something of the same conclusions you posted here. It now seems to me that what we have of Lactantius is a composite redaction from several different copies of his writings, as the writing styles go back and forth between effusive exaggeration and laconic. Gibbon wondered when to date the 15 months, and now I think it dates from Diocletian's death. I put the conclusions in the last four pages of my http://www.brainout.net/Ephesians1REPARSED.doc , to reanalyze when Diocletian died. That matters for my purposes, as I'm trying to understand why Paul stresses Diocletian and Constantine in his Greek meter and wry (sarcastic) terms. Allow about an hour from this post for me to upload the latest version of that very long document.

Thank you again!

[brainout]

Thank you, Vortigern Studies. Yes, that's the point of what I'm trying to establish. I'm very upset that this history is not adequately explained. Paul stressed the Crisis of the Third Century prophetically, in his syllables (=years) 231-252 of Ephesians 1:9-10; then more biting sarcasm, with respect to Diocletian and especially Constantine -- you could call it invective, even -- reserving syllables 301-308 (meaning Tribulation, meaning Christians Maximally Apostate) for those years. And of course all that brutal history is glossed over, in Christian circles. Or made to look like Constantine was a good guy. There were no good guys. Church was brutal, and frankly I begin to empathize with her being persecuted. She did the exact same thing when she came to power.

No wonder Paul is sarcastic! Syllable=year 337 (Eph 1:12) is 'tous proel', lol! Constantine died on Pentecost 337 (per http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm), and that's what proelpikotas signified, in Paul's Greek. So Constantine FELL SHORT of being firstfruits, get the pun? Lots of biting Greek wordplay like that, in the passage. Takes a long time to explain, and I'm not sure you'd want to hear it all.

So let's just say this much: your past posts about the timelines were very helpful to me in disciphering these facts. It took me all week; but was worth it. Now I can go back to my day job.