La réforme administrative de Dioclétien et les cités africaines

Diocletian divided many provinces and created the system of dioceses made up of several provinces. Many scholars consider his reform as establishing greater centralization: henceforth each provincial governor could control more strictly the cities under his rule. A sentence of Lactantius’ De Mortibus Persecutorum (VII, 4) is frequently cited in order to justify that view, but the fact that he was a Christian writer who harshly criticized the persecutors should not be overlooked. The aim of this article is to reconsider the real effect of the administrative reform on the relationship between the provincial cities and the imperial authority in the case of the African provinces, where many inscriptions give us abundant information.

First, the situation of Proconsularis is discussed. The date of the division of that province is uncertain: there is a strong case for 303, but 294/295 is possible. Therefore we examine successively the situation under Diocletian before 294, then from 295 on, ending with an analysis of the situation under of the reign of Constantine. In the first part of Diocletian’s reign, the activities of proconsul T. Cl. Aurelius Aristobulus are very important, but the province was not yet divided during his term. His activities should not be regarded as evidence for centralization, but as a policy aimed at facilitating the provincial reform. The province of Africa Proconsularis seems to be divided immediately after his departure. In the second part of Diocletian’s reign, no inscription testifies the development of centralization. Many cities continued to restore and construct public works and dedicate inscriptions to the Tetrarchic emperors on their own initiative and at their own expense.

In the reign of Constantine, the influence of senatorial governors seems to get stronger than before. According to some scholars, that situation was created by Diocletian’s administrative reform. But due to the shortness of his term, a provincial governor did not matter to the cities. Rather, they wanted to reinforce long relationship with influential senators, as the ordo recovered influence and power under Constantine.

It seems that the governors of Numidia and Mauretania encroached more on the municipal life than those of Proconsularis and Byzacena. But such a situation was not created by the reform of Diocletian: in Numidia, the third Augustan legion was stationed there and governors could use the soldiers. Besides, the number of cities was limited. In Mauretania, cities were few, and the governors had to make war against the mountain dwellers.

In conclusion, the examination of epigraphic and legal documents does not testify the development of centralization after the administrative reform of Diocletian. The differences between provinces and the effects of political change should be paid more attention to better comprehend the relationship between provincial cities and the imperial authority.