902 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
by Dalmatius after Constantine’s death, viz. he took no part in Con- 
stantine’s obsequies, which, had he ruled over Thrace, would have 
devolved upon him. 
But—(1) the obscure expression of Anon. Val. is outweighed by the 
record of Victor, who assigns Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece to Dal- 
matius. (2) It isa distinct mistake to appeal to Zosimos, for Zosimos 
is speaking not of the arrangement made by Constantine in 335, but 
of the arrangement made by the brothers in 337 (see above); von 
Ranke has correctly explained cvvjpxov. (38) Itis hard to see how 
Dalmatius’ absence from his uncle’s obsequies proves anything. We- 
may add that Richter does not take into account the important con- 
temporary evidence of Eusebios’ Panegyric. 
(4). Richter refers to Victor, epit. 41, for the second division. But 
this passage must refer to the earlier partition, as is proved by the 
mention of Annibalianus, even if we keep the old reading Dalmatiam, 
which is disproved by the Historia Miscella. 
(3). J. Burckhardt, ‘‘ Die Zeit Constantins des Grossen,” p. 337,. 
gives the partition of 335 thus:—Constantine II. received Britain, 
Gaul, and Spain; Constans, Italy and Africa; Dalmatius, all the 
lands between the Adriatic and Euxine; Constantius, Asia, Syria, 
and Egypt; Hannibalian, Armenia, Pontus, and surrounding lands, 
“‘man weiss nicht ob unbeschrinkt oder unter der oberherrschaft des. 
Constantius II.” 
This view does justice to the record of Victor concerning Dal- 
matius’ realm, but does not give sufficient weight to the Panegyric of 
Eusebios, which distinctly points to a quadri-partition among four 
Caesars, and implicitly excludes Annibalian, who was not a Caesar, 
from a co-ordinate position. 
Burckhardt’s discussion of Constantine’s motives in making this 
division is worth reading. His object was to secure a Constantinian 
dynasty, and he must divide ‘‘schon um die Dynastie zu schonen.”’ 
For if he made one of his sons sole heir, the probability was that he- 
would murder his brothers and kinsfolk (as the Turkish Sultans used 
to do), and thus the chance of the continuation of his house would 
depend on one individual; whereas by a division among five there 
was a likelihood that heirs would survive, in spite of almost certain 
civil wars, from more than one of the five dynasts. This theory 
depends on the thoroughly justifiable assumption that Constantine was 
quite aware of the characters of his sons. 
(4). In his essay on Zosimos, von Ranke comes to the following 
conclusions as certain: (1) no will of Constantine existed ; (2) at his 
death his three sons and two relations shared in the government ; 
(3) the army would have the sons only to reign over them. 
In regard to the government assigned to Dalmatius, he prefers 
Victor to Anon. Val. He appreciates fully the importance of the 
passages of Eusebius, and points out that in both passages he records 
‘die momentane Lage’ of affairs. 
