1. Diocese of Oriens
The Diocese of Oriens of the (praefectura praetorio per Orientem) was established in 314 and was the economic union of the provinces in the southern/southeastern territories of Asia Minor, Cyprus and in the territories of Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt. At the head of these provinces forming the diocese was the , an officer under the (praefectus praetorio).1 The mint supervised by the comes Orientis was in Antioch-on-the-Orontes, the capital of the province of Coele-Syria (subsequent Syria I).
Unlike other dioceses of the empire, the wider region which the comes Orientis was assigned to had never been forming a single administrative division before, nor had any served there.2 The responsibilities of the comes Orientis and his position in the hierarchy of the Late Roman / Early Byzantine Empire were similar to those of the of other dioceses.
As a geographical unit the Diocese of Oriens bordered to the north/northwest the diocese of Pontos and the Asia Minor territories of the diocese of Αsia. To the south lay the Mediterranean Sea, while the diocese was the border of the empire in Africa and Near East. An administrative change of minor importance took place in the provinces of Egypt and Arabia Petraia between 314/5 and 318, when regions of these provinces formed the autonomous province of New Arabia /Αραβία Νέα, as well as in the second half of the 4th century, when the political geography of the regions of Syria and Μesopotamia was permanently defined. In 359 the provinces of the Diocese of Oriens in Africa became the jurisdiction of the vicar of Italia and they then formed the Diocese of Egypt under the . From 359 on, the comes Orientis exercised his power over seventeen provinces. As long as the ecclesiastical administration is regarded, it should be pointed out that until 359 the ecclesiastical sees of the diocese belonged to the patriarchates of Alexandria, Αntioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople. 2. The Provinces of the Diocese of Oriens
The provinces of the Diocese of Oriens in the lands of Syria and Mesopotamia in the 4th century were the following: the provinces of Coele-Syria (later divided into Syria I and Syria II) of Mesopotamia, of Osrhoene and of Augusta Euphratesia, formed by the former separate provinces of Commagene and Palmyrene. In Palestine: the provinces of Palestine I, Palestine II, Palestine Salutaris, Phoenicia and Phoenicia Libanesia. In Arabia: the provinces of New Arabia and Arabia Petraia. In Cyprus: the province of Cyprus. In the southeastern territories of Asia Minor: the provinces of Cilicia I, Cilicia II and Isauria, which were formed in the territories of the roman provinces of Cilicia Pedias, Cilicia Trachea and Isauria. The land of these regions had a great variety: it was fertile in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, desert in the largest part of Syria, the Arabian Peninsula and Palestine, rough in southeastern Asia Minor and fertile in Cyprus.
With the administrative reform of Justinian I (527-565) the province of Mesopotamia was divided into the provinces of Armenia IV, Mesopotamia and South Mesopotamia. Moreover, in 528, the province of Theodorias was established in the territory of Syria I. The provinces of Arabia, Palestine and Phoenicia formed wider administrative units. In addition, the island of Cyprus as well as provinces of the Diocese of Asiana and the Diocese of Thrace was included in the jurisdiction of quaestor exercitus. The reform of Justinial probably aimed to secure the access to provisions of the army on the Danube River. 3. The Comes Orientis The judicial and economic jurisdiction of the comes Orientis passed gradually to other authorities of the dioceses; like the vicars, the comes Orientis had lost his judicial jurisdiction3 by the third quarter of the 4th century, and his responsibility on taxation by the 5th century. His office was preserved in the Early Byzantine administration as long as he was responsible for supervising the road network. In the years of Justinian I (527-565) the jurisdiction of the praetorian prefect further enlarged at the expense of the vicars and the comes Orientis, whose offices were finally abolished in the period 535-548/553.
The residence of the comes Orientis was in Antioch-on-the-Orontes, which was also the metropolis of the provinces of Coele-Syria at first and later of Syria I too; the mint of the diocese was also there. Besides, Antioch was a hub along the road serving communication with the eastern border of the empire. In February 387 the comes Orientis, who arrived in Antioch to suppress the 'Riot of the Statues', was a military officer, at the head of a force of archers. Is the coincidence of his title with that of the head of the diocese simply a mistake in our sources? The question still remains.
There is yet another question concerning the connection between the official and the metropolis Seleukeia of Isauria. In the years of Justinian I (527-565) the comes Orientis is mentioned in a Novella (imperial decree) of 535 among the governors of the provinces of the prefecture of Oriens. The decree defines their annual contributions to the imperial treasury.4 The comes appears first in a paragraph including the governors of the provinces of Galatia I and Phrygia Pacatiana, who had just occupied the positions of vicars as well as additional military duties in the Dioceses of Pontica and Asiana. There is no apparent reason why the province of Isauria was not included.5 The most plausible explanation certainly concerns the simultaneous reform that replaced the vicars with the comes of particular provinces for a short period. The comes of Isauria replaced the ruler of Isauria in 536-548/553 and assumed power, according to a Novella of 536, as it happened with the reform that abolished the vicars of Pontos and Asia.6 It should be mentioned that in an earlier period, from 400 and for a few years, the governor of Isauria was recognised under the title of comes,7 while, as far as it is known, this is the only case, until the reforms of Justinian I (527-565) came into effect, when there was neither a governor nor a consul at the head of the province. The question remains as to whether this was a coincidence or it showed the particular position of Seleukeia of Isauria in the Diocese of Oriens.
4. Cities, Population and Culture
Some of the cities included in the provinces of the Diocese of Oriens were among the most important cities of the empire: Jerusalem of Palestine I, the see of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Bostra of Arabia Petraia, Edessa of Osrhoene, Αntioch-on-the-Orontes in Syria I, the see of the patriarch of Antioch, and Amid of Mesopotamia. Such cities dominated the economy and the culture of the wider region. Of great strategic importance were always the cities in southeastern Asia Minor and mainly Tarsus of Cilicia I, which supervised the Cilician Gates (Külek Boğazı), the natural access to Asia Minor, as well as Edessa of Osrhoene, which supervised the pastures for horses and the bread baskets of the region supplying the Byzantine army when it carried out operations on the eastern border.
The inahabitants of the provinces were Greek-speaking Roman citizens, such as the Cypriots, or - more or less - Hellenised: the urban populations who inhabited the Syrian coastal cities, as well as all the important cities,Cilicians, Isaurian tribes, native Syrian urban and rural population, nomadic Arab tribes, and Jews living within and outside Palestine. It should be mentioned that in the wider region the native inhabitants were organized in tribes outside the cities throughout Late Antiquity. This form of organization was maintained in the provinces including deserts, where nomads mainly lived, as well as in Isauria and the fertile land of the Near East. In addition, the people who lived in the East kept a distance from the Roman / Early Byzantine culture, while the differences were obvious even among the historical regions that had formed the diocese. The rebellious Isaurians were a special case because, according to the central administration, they turned to brigandage to earn their living mainly in the neighbouring provinces of the Diocese of Asia. It is interesting that, despite systematic operations in Isauria from the mid-4th century onward, the Isaurians remained closely attached to their traditional values. In the years of Heraclius (610-641) the central administration continued the operations in the rebellious Isauria. The central administration was not interested in the Arabian tribes in Late Antiquity, with the exception of Justinian I (527-565). However, the enforcement of the Roman law was not always easy in their territories.
The ecclesiastical history in the Diocese of Oriens was marked by Monophysitism in the 6th century. Most inhabitants of Syria and Mesopotamia adopted the monophysitic doctrine, contrary to the official policy of the Patriarchate of Antioch. From then on the monophysites would be recognised as Syrian Jacobite Christians, contrary to those advocating the two natures of Jesus (Orthodox), who followed the belief of the Roman king and were therefore called ‘melchites’, meaning royalists. The Christian inhabitants of Palestine and Cyprus as well as the inhabitants of the provinces in southeastern Asia Minor remained adhered to the doctrine of Chalcedon. The Arab nomads of the provinces of the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Mesopotamia, formerly pagans, were Islamized and became autonomous in the early 7th century.
5. The Dissolution of the Diocese of Oriens
The frontier provinces in the east of the geographical division of Oriens were vulnerable to occasional invaders, such as the Bedouins, who looted them, and became the target of the expansive policy of the Persian Empire. Sieges and bloody conflicts took repeatedly place in their territories. The Persians advanced progressively during the 4th and the 6th century and in the two first decades of the 7th century, when they captured for quite a long period the most important cities Amid, Edessa and Jerusalem. Then it was the turn of the Arabs to invade. By the second quarter of the 7th century the provinces of Oriens were permanently occupied by the Arabs, except for the Asia Minor provinces of Cilicia I, Cilicia II and Isauria, which remained under Byzantine rule. A great part of this region was deserted. In the fourth decade of the 7th century Arab guards were stationed between Antioch-on-the-Orontes (Syria) and Tarsus (Cilicia), in Byzantine territories. Cyprus became a disputed island from then on.
The abolishment of the title of the praetorian prefect and his subordinate vicars of the dioceses took place in the 7th century, when the system of the dioceses ceased to exist and the themes comprised the wider geographical units. This happened in the third quarter of the 7th century. All the territories of the Diocese of Oriens that had remained under Byzantine rule became the jurisdiction of the Theme of Anatolikon in 667. |
1. The Roman/early Byzantine empire was geographically divided according to its Asian and European territories, which formed the prefecture of Oriens and the prefectures of Illyricum and of Italy respectively. The administration of the wider territories was assigned to the prefect. The establishment of the institution of the dioceses, six per prefecture, under the vicar safely dates from 314. See Zuckerman, K., 'Sur la liste de Vérone et la province de grande Arménie, la division de l’Empire et la date de création des diocèses', Travaux et Mémoires 14 (2002) pp. 617-638, especially from p. 617 on and p. 636. The Diocese of Oriens was under a comes instead of a vicar, see ODB III s.v. vicar. 2. See RE 2 R 8 (1958) s.v. Vicer (Enssiln, W.), 2015-44. 3. Jones A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire 284-602 (Oxford 1964 reprinted 1990), I p. 374 and note no. 21. 4. Corpus Iuris Civilis vol. III: Novellae, ed. Schöll R. ( Dublin - Zürich10 1972) pp. 80-88, in the Novella of 535, in the paragraph including the best performances, first in order was the comes Orientis and last was the vicar of the Long Wall, especially pp. 80-81. Between them were the proconsul of Asia, the comes of Phrygia Pacatiana and the comes of Galatia I. The officials of all categories returned exactly the same income per category. 5. In Corpus Iuris Civilis vol. III: Novellae, Schöll, R. (ed.) ( Dublin - Zürich 1972), no category includes the provinces of Isauria and Pontos Polemoniakos, later annexed to the Helenopontos as a wider Helenopontos, and Paphlagonia, which later joined Honorias as the wider Paphlagonia. 6. Corpus Juris Civilis vol. III: Novellae, Schöll, R.-Kroll, G. (eds.) , (reprinted Dublin –Zürich 1972) pp. 210-211. 7. Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5. Kilikien un Isaurien p. 38 note no. 73: "comes of Isauria" as well as "doukas". They both were military posts in a period when the political and the military power were absolutely separate in the provinces. |