The Fifth-Century Chroniclers. Prosper, Hydatius and the Gallic Chronicle of 452 0905205766, 9780905205762

Citation preview

ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs

27

General Editors: Francis Cairns, Robin Seager, Frederick Williams Assistant Editors: Neil Adkin, Sandra Cairns ISSN 0309-5541

THE FIFTH-CENTURY CHRONICLERS Prosper, Hydatius, and the Gallic Chronicler of 452

STEVEN MUHLBERGER

ÌC

FRANCIS CAIRNS

Published by Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd c/o The University, LEEDS, LS2 9JT, Great Britain

First published 1990

Copyright 'c' Steven Muhlberger, 1990

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro­ duced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission ol the Publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Muhlberger, Steven, 1950— The fifth-century chroniclers : Prosper, Hydatius.and the Gallic Chronicler o f452. — (Area, ISSN 0309-5541; V. 27), I. Europe, to 1453. Historiography I. Title II. Series 940.1072 ISBN 0-905205-76-6

Printed in Great Britain by Redwood Press Ltd, Melksham, Wiltshire

CONTENTS Abbreviations Acknowledgements I

Introduction

II

The Historiographical Background of the Fifth-Century Chronicles 1 2 3 4

III

Two Influences on the Form o f theChronicles Jerome and the Greek ChronicleTradition The Consular Annals The Choice of a Model

ix xi 1

8 10 23 46

Prosper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

IV

The Author The Structure of the Chronicle Prosper’s Epitome of Jerome Prosper’s Continuation — General Characteristics The Edition of 433 The Edition of 445 The Edition of 451 The Edition of 455 Prosper’s Moral Critique of Recent History

48 55 60 73 78 102 115 121 127

The Gallic Chronicler of 452 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

V

An Anonymous Chronicler The Manuscript Tradition Chronological Aspects of the Chronicle The Sources The Chronicler as an Observer of the Church in his Day Reading through the Chronicle The Chronicler and the Crisis of Empire Prosper and the Gallic Chronicler

136 137 146 152 160 165 175 191

Hydatius 1 2 3 4 5 6

Introduction The Author The Manuscript Tradition and Chronology The Sources General Characteristics of the Chronicle The Empire Beset with Difficulties I: From Theodosius to the End of his Dynasty

193 195 200 204 212 217

The Empire Beset with Difficulties II: From Avitus to the End of the Chronicle 8 Treachery and Order in the World of Hydatius 9 The State of the Church 10 Resistance and Accommodation in Hydatius’s Gallaecia 11 The Apocalypticism of Hydatius 12 The Last of the Romans 7

224 227 234 245 260 264

Conclusion

1 The Fifth Century Chroniclers as Observers of their Time

267

2 The Fifth Century Chroniclers as Practitioners of the 3

Historical Art 271 Readers and Continuators of the Fifth Century Chroniclers 275

Appendix: The Chronology of Hydatius

1 Hydatius’s Chronology and the Manuscript Tradition

279 279 285 291 299 312

2 Errors and Uncertainties in Hydatius’s Chronology 3 Courtois’s Interpretation of the Chronology 4 Courtois’s Critique Reconsidered 5 The Chronology of Hydatius: An Interpretation Addendum

Bibliography

313

Index

325

Maps Places and Regions Mentioned by Prosper to 433 facing p. 78 Places and Regions Mentioned by Prosper 434-455 facing p. 102 Places and Regions Mentioned in the Chronicle of 452 facing p. 166 Places and Regions Mentioned by Hydatius facing p. 218 Places in Spain and Portugal Mentioned by Hydatius facing p. 246

FOR M Y FAMILY

ABBREVIATIONS All citations to the chronicles of Prosper, Hydatius, and the Gallic Chronicler of 452 are to the chapters of the editions of Mommsen, cited below. Blockley, FCH

Campos CH CIL Chron. 452 Chron. 511 CM CSEL FHG FV GCS Flelm

R.C. Blockley. The Fragmentary Classicising Historians o f the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius. Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus. 2 vols. Liverpool, 1981-3 Hydatius of Lemica (Idacio). Idacio, Obispo de Chaves. Su Cronicón. ed. and trans. Julio Campos. Salamanca, 1984 Consularia Hydatiana. ed. Th. Mommsen (as Consularia Constantinopolitana). CM, 1: 197-247. Corpus Inscriptionum iMtinarum. Berlin Chronica a. CCCCLI1. ed. Th. Mommsen. In Chronica Gallica, CM, 1: 516-666 Chronica a. DXI. ed. Th. Mommsen. In Chronica Gallica, CM, 1: 516-666 Mommsen, Theodor (ed.). Chronica Minora Saec. IV, V, VI, VII, 3 vols., MGH: AA, vols 9, 11, 13. Berlin, 1892-8 Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna Müller, C. (ed.). Fragmenta Historicum Graecorum. Paris, 1851 Fasti Vindobonenses. ed. Th. Mommsen. In Consularia Italica, CM 1: 249-339 Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahr­ hunderte. Berlin Helm, Rudolf (ed.). Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Eusebius Werke 7. 2nd ed. GCS, voi. 47. Berlin, 1956.

Hydatius of Lemica. Continuatio chronicorum Hieronymianorum ad a. CCCCLXVI11. ed. Th. Mommsen. CM, 2: 1-36 Citations of the Chronicle of Jerome (Helm ed.) by years of the Jerome, ab. Abr. era of Abraham. Monumenta Germaniae Historica MGH AA Auctores Antiquissimi Script. Rer. Merov. Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum Narratio Narratio de imperatoribus domus Valentinianae et Theodosianae. ed. Th. Mommsen. In Chronica Gallica, CM, 1: 615-666 Neues Archiv der Gesellschaftfü r ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde Neues Archiv Migne, J.P. (ed.). Patrologia cursus completus: Series latina PL A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale, and J. Morris. The ProsopoPLRE graphy o f the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge, 1971 Hyd.

IX

ABBREVIATIONS

Prosp.

Prosper of Aquitaine. Epitoma chronicon. ed. Th. Mommsen. CM 1: 341-499

RE

Pauly, A. von, Wissowa, G., et al. (eds.). Real-Encyclopädie der dänischen Altertumwissenschaft. Stuttgart, 1893

Tranoy

Hydatius of Lemica (Hydace). Chronique. ed. and trans. Alain Tranoy. 2 vols. Sources Chrétiennes, vols. 218-219. Paris, 1974

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book has been long in the making, and many people have contributed to it. Walter Goffart first suggested to me that the Chronica Minora deserved to be looked at anew, and might provide material for a dissertation. He read and commented on that dissertation several times, and patiently listened to me talk about the chronicles. His suggestions have always been most valuable. Three other people must be thanked for their comments and encourage­ ment: John Corbett, whose sympathetic interest over the years has been a great boon; Brian Croke, who generously contributed a painstaking critique of the section on the consular annals; and Ralph Mathisen, whose enthusiasm for the fifth century I have always found heartening. Of course none of them can be held responsible for any flaws or errors that may be found herein. I owe special thanks to those who enabled me to see the most important chronicle manuscripts. These include my parents, Mr. and Mrs. R.G. Muhlberger, and the Department of History of the University of Toronto, who helped finance a research trip to Europe. When I found it impossible to gain access to the Berlin ms. of Hydatius, Professor E. A. Thompson most kindly sent me a facsimile of his microfilm copy. I have been most fortunate in my publishers, whose help and encouragement have been exceptional. My long-time friend Philippe Paine created the maps. I am especially grateful for the constant support of my family. Since I have been quite selective in citing secondary sources, I would conclude by acknowledging my immense debt to the scholars who have studied and written about the fifth century and its chroniclers before me. If I have added anything to our understanding of the chronicles and their writers, it is because I have learned so much from my predecessors.

Xi

I INTRODUCTION

The fifth century A.D. has always been a period of exceptional interest for historians. At its beginning, the Roman empire presented the appearance, as it had for so many years, of an eternal institution. Of late it had been bedeviled by civil wars and barbarian raids, but few would have believed that the survival of the state was endangered by them. Indeed, optimism was possible. Some contemporaries saw the dawning of “ Christian times,” the adoption of an official Christian morality and theology by the rulers of the day, as a spiritual development of epochal significance that promised a great future for the Roman state.1 Yet by the year 500 the world had been changed almost beyond recognition. The western emperor had been deposed and the imperial government had lost control of most of Europe: a Vandal king ruled in Carthage, Goths in Gaul, Spain and Italy, while Britain and the Rhineland were being settled by lesser barbarian peoples. There remained an imperial court at Constantinople, but it was dominated by warlords scarcely distinguishable, in some ways, from those who lorded over the west. Observers in the early sixth century, both in the surviving eastern empire and in the fallen west, were beginning to realize that they lived in a post-Roman, post­ imperial world.2 Western Europeans and their cultural descendants in other parts of the world have long seen the fifth century as a crucial one in the transition between the civilization of antiquity and their own. It is 1 Peter Brown, Augustine o f Hippo (London, 1967), pp. 230-232. 2 Walter Goffart, “Zosimus, the First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” American Historical Review, 76 (1971): 412-441.

I

INTRODUCTION

our misfortune that the era is in many ways an obscure one. Besides the inherent difficulties in understanding a period of rapid change, our sources allow us to know far less than we might wish about the political and military aspects of the transition. This is particularly true for the western empire. Between 400, when Ammianus Marcel­ linus laid down his pen, and 573, when Gregory of Tours picked up his, no Latin writer composed a large-scale narrative history of his own times; no history, at least, that has survived. We can read western theology, hagiography, apologetic, legislation and poetry, and be grateful for them; but the lack of a narrative historian to take us step by step through the great events of his time has always frustrated students of this period. Those who wrote history in Latin in the fifth century were not interested in the detailed description and analysis of current politics and military affairs, nor in creating great works of literary history. Christians to a man, they were preoccupied by the sweep of history as a whole, because they saw it as the working out of God’s plan for humanity. Recent events had meaning for them only in the context of salvation history. The connection between present and past was for them best and most easily shown in a new type of historical work, the Christian world chronicle. In the chronicle, the narrative structure of literary history was replaced by a chronological framework, usually a list of consuls, emperors, or kings. Events were noted very briefly and were placed in rough chronological order by inserting them at appropriate points in the list. The chronicler could in this manner summarize the events of the recent past, or, for that matter, all of history. The form was as popular with readers as with writers. The Latin reading public had long preferred epitomes to full narrative histories; Christian world chronicles were the ultimate epitomes, since they made it possible to put the highlights of universal history in one small book. The chronicle so well suited the taste of the new Christian culture that it became the most popular historical genre of the Middle Ages. Since the end of the Middle Ages, however, chroniclers and their works have enjoyed a low reputation. Moderns have accorded classic status to the works of the great Greek and Latin historians and regarded late ancient and medieval historiography as a falling away from this high standard. The chronicle has been judged a defective type of history, created by compilers incapable of reflecting on the material they collected, while the popularity of the chronicle and the lack of narrative historians have been treated as indicative of the

3

intellectual deficiencies of the post-classical age.3 The individual chronicle has been treated as a melange of miscellaneous information, worthy of attention only when it preserves otherwise unavailable facts. Thirty years ago the Spanish historian Casimiro Torres Rodriguez, in an article on the chronicle of Hydatius, succinctly expressed this traditional view:4 ...we can say that [the chronicle of Hydatius] is a universal history, and an ecclesiastical history and a Spanish history, a meteorological history, an autobiography of the author and a history of the superstitions, even o f the folklore, of his epoch. But we ought to add that it is all that, and other things as well, in potential, as the ashlars, the blocks o f concrete, the materials of construction are an edifice in potential. In fact, the chronicle of Hydatius is no more than that, a grouping o f materials, a series of ashlars more or less prepared and polished, with which the modern historian can arrange a history of any nuance from the noted facts; materials which do not reveal any interconnection but the chronological one. The chronology, the succession [of events] scrupulously shown in accordance with the advance of time, is the axis of the chronicle of Hydatius. The rest is to be done; as in an excavation, the data are in strata. The deeper ones are older, those closer to the surface reflect the latter days of his life, all buried in a haphazard manner in distinct temporal redoubts, without any appraisal of another sort... the deeds present themselves to the eyes o f the present day historian, fleshless indeed, but free of all earlier subjective interference, preserved safe in the inmost recesses of time, as archaeological remains are safe under layers of earth.

In recent years, however, there has been an upsurge of interest in late antique and medieval historiography, and scholars have in­ creasingly wondered whether we have not missed something by dismissing the historical output of entire centuries in this fashion.5In ’ On the choice of model, Arnaldo Momigliano, “ History and Biography” , in The Legacy o f Greece, ed. M.I. Finley (Oxford, 1981), p. 155. On the defects of the chronicle, R.G. Collingwood, The Idea o f History (Oxford, 1946), pp. 202-204 (hut see note 9 below), and Benedetto Croce, History as the Story o f Liberty, trans. Sylvia Sprigge (London, 1941), p. 18. On this subject see also Brian Croke, “The Origins of the Christian World Chronicle,” in History and Historians in Late Antiquity, ed. Brian Croke and Alanna M. Emmett (Sydney, 1983), p. 116 and n. 1. 4 “ El Cronicón de Hidacio: Consideracioncs,” Compostellanum, 1 (1956): 237-238. ' See the detailed discussion in Roger Ray, “Medieval Historiography through the Twelfth Century: Problems and Progress of Research,” Viator, 5 (1974): 33-59. The more positive attitude to late antique and early medieval historiography is well exemplified by Brian Croke and Alanna Emmett, “Historiography in Late Antiquity: An Overview," in History and Historians in iMte Antiquity ed. Brian Croke and Alanna M. Emmett (Sydney, 1983), pp. 1-12. The works of Nancy Partner, which concentrate on the twelfth century but have wider implications, deserve note: Serious Enter­ tainments (Chicago, 1977); “The New Cornificius: Medieval History and the Artifice of Words,” in Classical Rhetoric and Medieval Historiography, ed. Ernst Breisach (Kalamazoo, 1985), pp. 5-59; “ Making Up Lost Time: Writing on the Writing of History,” Speculum, 61 (1986): 90-117.

4

INTRODUCTION

particular the chronicle form so characteristic of the period has come in for new scrutiny. There has been important work on the typology of chronicles and annals; inquiries into the connection between chronicles and the mentality of the society that produced them; even a few in-depth investigations of individual chroniclers.6 All this research has been based on a willingness of modern historians to look at chronicles and the men behind them with some degree of respect. We have begun to see the value of understanding the chronicler, in Roger Ray’s words, “as a person of intellectual and literary accomplishment in and for his own time.”7 This view has implications for the study of the fifth and early sixth centuries. It raises the possibility that the superficially arid chro­ niclers of the period have something more to tell the sympathetic reader. This would not seem to be an unrealistic hope, at least in the case of those western writers who, following in the footsteps of Jerome and Eusebius, produced relatively extensive works. Jerome’s early continuators, for all that they wrote brief, unanalytical accounts, were more than recorders of miscellaneous facts. They 6 On typology: Anna-Dorothee van den Brincken, Studien zur lateinischen Weltchronistik bis in der Zeitalter Ottos von Freising (Düsseldorf, 1957); M.R.P. McGuire, “Annals and Chronicles,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1967) 1: 551-556; Michael McCormick, “ Les annales du haut moyen äge,” Typologie des sources du moyen age occidental, fase. 14 (Tournhout, 1975) and Karl Krüger, "Die Universalchroniken,’' ibid., fase. 16 (Tournhout, 1976); Bernard Guenée, “Histoires, annales, chroniques,” Annales; économies, sociétés, civilizations, n.s. 28 (1973): 9771016; Hans-Georg Beck, “ Zur byzantinischen ‘Monchschronik,’” in Speculum historiale: Geschichte im Spiegel von Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsdeutung, ed. C. Bauer, L. Boehm, M. Müller (Freiburg-Munich, 1965), pp. 188-197. On mentalities: Charles W. Jones, Saints' Lives and Chronicles in Early England (Ithaca, N.Y., 1947); William J. Brandt, The Shape o f Medieval History: Studies in Modes o f Perception (New Haven, 1966) (neither completely successful). Two early chroniclers, John of Biclar and Hydatius, have been re-edited: Julio Campos, Juan de Biclaro, Obispo de Gerona: Su vida y su obra (Madrid, 1960); Alain Tranoy (ed. and trans.), Hydace, Chronique, Sources Chrétiennes no. 218-219 (Paris, 1974), and Julio Campos (ed. and trans.), Idacio, Obispo de Chaves, Su Cronicón, (Salamanca, 1984). Richard W. Burgess's forthcoming Oxford dissertation, “ Hydatius: A Chronicler of the Later Roman Empire in Post-Roman Spain," a text and commentary, will make an important contribution. E.A. Thompson, Romans and Barbarians: The Decline o f the Western Empire (Madison, 1982), pp. 137-229, discusses Hydatius at length. On Prosper, there are two recent articles, R.A. Markus, “Chronicle and Theology,” The Inheritance o f Historiography, 350-900, Exeter Studies in History no. 12, ed. by C. Holdsworth and T.P. Wiseman (Exeter, 1986), pp. 31-43 and Concetta Molè, “ Prospettive universali e prospettive locali nella storiografìa latina del V secolo, La storiografìa ecclesiastica nella tarda antichità. Atti del convegno tenuto in Erice(3-8 XII 1978), Scuola superiore di archeologia e civilità medievali, 3° corso (Messina, 1980), pp. 195-239. On Marcellinus, we await Markus, “ Politics and Historiography in Ostrogothic Italy: The Chronicle of Marcellinus and its Continuation in the Light of Recent Work,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Well, voi. 3 (forthcoming), and a book by Brian Croke. 7 Ray, p. 33 n. 1, referring to the seminal article of J. Spörl, “Das Mittelalterliche Geschichtsdenken als Forschungsaufgabe,” Historisches Jahrbuch, 53 (1933): 281-303.

INTRODUCTION

5

were participants in a literary tradition, and they wrote signed literary works.8 Their chronicles were generally written at one time, and thus were the product of reflection and planning on the part of the author. Since we usually know when and where a given chronicle was written, it can show us how one man visualized the past — and thus the present — in the context of universal history. These chroniclers have a further claim on our attention: they were among the first to write a new kind of history. What has often been regarded as an era of historiographical sterility is now recognized as a period of innovation.9 It was precisely at this time that the Christian world chronicle, heretofore chiefly a Greek and eastern pheno­ menon, was introduced into the west. The Latin writers who so enthusiastically attached themselves to the tradition of Eusebius and Jerome, finding it an appropriate method for recording the events of their own lifetimes, were helping to create the literary genre that served as the chief link between the historical writing of antiquity and that of the Middle Ages. Three of the earliest and most interesting of these pioneering chroniclers, Prosper, Hydatius, and the anonymous Gallic Chro­ nicler of 452, are the subject of this book. Each of them wrote a continuation or (in the case of Prosper) a revision and continuation of Jerome’s chronicle, itself a translation of Eusebius’s Christian world chronicle. All three have long been known and valued as sources. This study, however, is an attempt to see the three chronicles not merely as sources, but as literary and historiographical works significant for the time in which they were written. I will be treating the chronicles as the products of men who consciously compiled, if rather more briefly than we might wish, a record of the important events of their lifetimes. My primary assumption in dealing with these works is that Prosper, Hydatius, and the Chronicler of452 each had, in Robert Hanning’s felicitous phrase, “a vision of history,” 10in the light of which he evaluated the recent past, and that these visions are in themselves historical facts of which we can and should be * Of the major chronicles of the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries, only the Copenhagen Continuation of Prosper and the Continuation of Marcellinus are anonymous in the manuscripts. A number of the major continuations of Jerome are anonymous to us because they bear false attributions. There also exist some anonymous minor continuations, chiefly of Prosper. ’ Ernst Breisach, H istoriography: Ancient, M edieval and Modern (Chicago, 1983), pp. 77-106. Even Collingwood, p. 51, saw the invention of Christian historiography, if not the chronicle form that so often expressed Christian historical conceptions, as “a permanent enrichment of human thought.” 10 The Vision o f H istory in Early Britain (New York, 1966).

INTRODUCTION

6

aware. Whatever we can learn of their minds, their values, their visions of history will aid our understanding of how people of the fifth century saw their world. The choice of Prosper, Hydatius, and the Chronicler of 452 deserves some comment. It was determined by the intrinsic interest of their accounts and their contemporaneity. The chronicles considered here originated in the middle decades of the fifth century. Prosper, a Gallic lay theologian who lived much of his life in Rome, wrote the several editions of his work between 433 and 455. The anonymous Gallic chronicle dates from 452 or soon after. Hydatius, a bishop of northwestern Spain of the same age as Prosper, finished his record near the end of his long life in the year 469. All three continued Jerome’s work from its end in 378, and therefore were forced to come to terms with the major changes in the Roman world since Jerome’s time: the crumbling of imperial power in the West, barbarian settlements and invasions, the political subjugation of much of the Roman population to Arian heretics. The period for which their testimony is most authoritative is of great interest with modern scholars. How the chroniclers portrayed this period, what they thought significant and what they ignored, are facts worthy of attention. Their proximity in time, as well as their different locations and circumstances, gives us a valuable tool of analysis. Comparison of their accounts tells us more than any single author could. ★

The present study begins with a chapter on the development of the chronicle form up to the fifth century: the individual contributions of the three authors cannot be evaluated without a knowledge of the tradition in which they chose to work. The bulk of the book examines separately the chronicles of Prosper, the Chronicler of 452, and Hydatius, in that order. In each case the inquiry begins with thorough examination of the usual preliminary topics. There is an attempt to place our witness in context by reviewing, where possible, his life and intellectual circumstances. Following the biographical section is a review of the manuscript evidence for the text, based on, if at times disagreeing with, the standard treatment in Theodor Mommsen’s edition of the Chronica Minora. The rather detailed discussion of such technical material, though sometimes tedious, is required to establish the limits of our knowledge of the texts in question. Appropriate attention will also be paid to the sources,

7

chronological method and accuracy of all three chroniclers. Once the technical foundations have been laid, we will proceed to an interpretation of the text. Our method will be to strive to see each work as a whole, as the result of one writer’s selection of significant events. If the chronicler has stated his assessment of his times, or explicitly pointed to the importance of an event or series of events, such statements will receive due attention, but we will also look for wider patterns. We will try to detect, by comparing the chronicler’s account to modern knowledge of the fifth century, the author’s criteria for selection and placement of emphasis. We will also pay heed to his use of vocabulary and to the rhetorical structure of single entries. Finally, we will seek to gauge the intended effect of the entire work, in so far as that is possible, and evaluate its historiographical significance for us. It must be acknowledged that such interpretation is a tricky business. Our chroniclers were using a form not of their own devising, one that set definite limits on their self-expression. There are ambiguities in their accounts forever beyond our power to resolve. We shall never know as much about our authors and their times as we would if they had written narrative history. These considerations are, of course, reasons for proceeding cautiously.11 They have not, however, discouraged me from trying to see in each of these works the outline of the mind that made it, and to discover within each text what was true for its author, who, when all is said, remains a unique and valuable witness to the past. This book is directed in great part at students of the fifth century, but also at a wider audience. Prosper, Hydatius, and the Chronicler of 452 are not simply witnesses to the events and historical consciousness of a particular era; they deserve to be seen also as practitioners of the art of history. Now that the genre they helped to create has begun to excite the sympathetic interest of scholars, I hope that this study of their efforts will contribute to further investigation of the medieval chronicle. 11 The dangers of trying to read too much into a chronicle, or rather isolated entries thereof, is demonstrated by the bold but flawed attempt of A.M. Wes, in Das Ende des Kaisertums im Westen des römischen Reichs (The Hague, 1967) to trace the history of ideas about the end of the western empire in part through the interpretation of chronicle accounts of the year 476. The most important criticisms of the book areto be found in A. Demandt’s review in Byzantische Zeitschrift, 62 ( 1969): 96-101, and in Croke, “ A.D. 476: The Manufacture of a Turning Point,” Chiron, 13 (1983): 81-119. Croke’s article, p. 93, gives citations for the many reviews of and commentaries on Wes’s book and his thesis.

II THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND OF THE FIFTH-CENTURY CHRONICLES

1. Two Influences on the Form of the Chronicles In the middle of the sixth century, the aged and learned Cassiodorus sat down to write a guide to learning for the monks of his monastery of Vivarium. The book, entitled Institutiones, included a chapter “On Christian historians” that enables us to see how one well informed person, an historian and chronicler himself, defined the chronicle form. Historians, Cassiodorus said, are those who “ recount the shifting movement of events and the unstable history of kingdoms with eloquent but very cautious splendor.” In describing some individual practitioners of the genre, he praised their extensive and subtle works (Josephus) and their eloquence (the Greek ecclesiastical historians). When he came to the chronicles, Cassiodorus clearly contrasted them with the histories previously described. No splendor here: chronicles, he explained, “are the mere shadows of histories and very brief reminders of the times.” 1 ★ Brevity and a lack of literary pretension — one might say ambition — were the chief characteristics of the chronicle form, in the fifth century as well as the sixth. Prosper, Hydatius,and the Chronicler of 452 chose to work within a genre that gave them little scope for originality. Further, they presented themselves simply as continuators or reworkers of the earlier chronicles of Eusebius and Jerome. Even Hydatius, who wrote a preface to introduce himself and to 1 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.17.1-2. ed. R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford, 1937), pp. 55-57. Chroniclers mentioned include Eusebius, Jerome, Prosper, and Cassiodorus himself.8 8

TWO INFLUENCES ON THE FORM OF THE CHRONICLES

9

explain his efforts, devoted it to stressing his dependence on his predecessors. If we are to understand the individual contributions of these self-effacing men, we must first understand the models that they sought to emulate. Their chief model was, of course, Jerome’s Chronicle, a translation and continuation of Eusebius’s Canons. Jerome’s chronicle made the best example of Greek chronography part of Latin literature; as a complete but relatively brief summary of world and Christian history, it had no Latin rival, and thus it was quickly adopted and long treasured by western readers. It was an attractive basis for the Christian writer who wished to link an annalistic account of his own times to the important secular and religious events of the past. A second and less familiar tradition, that of the consular annals, also had a role in the shaping of the Latin chronicles. The consular annals were a type of anonymous record entirely without stylistic embellishment that became popular in the early fourth century and flourished for two hundred years thereafter. The annals first appeared in Constantinople and were brought to the West in the time of Theodosius I. There they quickly became a common form of record-keeping, as well as a source and a model for chroniclers and historians. Prosper and Hydatius both used them in the creation of their own works — in fact, Prosper was the first westerner known to have done so. Our examination of the background of the fifthcentury chronicles must therefore include a look at the consular annals and their influence on historical writing in the west. It seems appropriate to begin with the older of the two traditions, that of Eusebius and Jerome. The long-standing nature of the eastern chronographic enterprise is worth emphasis. In translating Eusebius, Jerome drew upon merely the latest exploration of chronology by a Greek-speaking scholar, itself the product of a long and complex development. Eusebius in composing his chronicle benefitted from the work of many pagan investigators over the previous six centuries; and in the use to which Eusebius put that material, he was following a long line of Jewish and Christian apologists.2

2 See also Brincken, Studien zur lateinischen W eltchronistìk , and now Croke, ‘‘Origins of the Christian World Chronicle,” in H istory and H istorians in Late Antiquity, ed. Croke and Emmett (Sydney, 1983), pp. 116-131.

IO

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

2. Jerome and the Greek Chronicle Tradition The first chronological works in Greek were cast in the form of a pinax, i.e. a catalogue or list. The/)/«« was originally an inventory of similar things or people. Such lists were commonly used both in ancient Greek inscriptions and in literature. The list was the most natural form for Greek chronology, since years were counted and events dated by reference to lists of priests, local kings or magistrates, whose tenures or reigns were known or were able to be calculated, or Olympic victors. In the fifth century B.C. the pinax came into its own as a literary form, since the sophists of the period had a particular need, as teachers and orators, for concise summaries of facts. One of the first literary pinakes was the pioneering chronological work of Hippias of Elis, which was an annotated list of the Olympic victors.1 A more cosmopolitan chronography grew up in Hellenistic times, encouraged by the widening of Greek mental horizons following Alexander’s conquest of most of the known world. The political unification of the Greeks led to a new appreciation of the unity of their culture, while the hegemony of Alexander’s successors over the “barbarians” sparked interest in the non-Greek world. Hellenistic scholars were challenged by a wealth of new knowledge, and responded with an attempt to collect and categorize facts of all sorts. The pinax, whether it was a list of literary men and their works, of geographical features, or of natural wonders, was a characteristic product of Hellenistic and especially Alexandrian research. Among the catalogues assembled in Alexandria were the Chronography of Eratosthenes, who wrote the first such work based on scientific principles, and the Chronicle of Apollodorus, a popularization of the Chronography. Each of these treatises established the chronology of many political, literary and cultural events in relation to an Olympiad reckoning. Eratosthenes’s rigorous work was little read and soon lost, but Apollodorus’s Chronicle circulated widely and inspired many imitations and continuations down to imperial times. The chief accomplishment of such later chronographers was to relate the Greek chronography established by the early Alexandrians to those of other Mediterranean peoples.4 ’ Otto Regenbogen, s.v. “pinax," RE, 20, Pt. 2: cols. 1462-1463; Rudolf Pfeiffer, History o f Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End o f the Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968), pp. 51-52. 4 Croke, “Origins,” pp. 119-120. Pfeiffer, History o f Classical Scholarship, pp. 255257. P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), 1: 456-457 for Eratosthenes and passim for the intellectual life of Alexandria.

.11 KOMI AND THE and far not* pages of the chronicle held ten Where the often fit in only three four °c years’ the '3ter pageS C° U d Aii e i , ’ our>or free years 40 All of Jerome’s additions j , v were motivated by his own d alteratlons of Eusebius’s work Although Eusebius had an ΐη ? ”“ 1*·10^ ° f the W° rk bef°re events unprecedented am o n ^rh ^ ,ndividual bistorlca' nevertheless basically a t r e f t i s e hÌS Chronicle™ l unninoHir n„rnAr τ treatise on scientific chronology with an he considered fh ^ erome>however, translated the Canons because to the I tint h v* & ^ul accotmt of historical material unknown U * Lth d °.n· He had »ttle if any interest in apologetic. He said nothing of ,t in his introduction, and he added nothing to usebius s account of early biblical times. This lessening of apologe lc in eres is quite understandable in the changed circumstances of , . f , . a f r , ° Urt, CentUry· ^ be church faced new conflicts to which 1 ica c rono ogy was essentially irrelevant. Jerome in fact ignored , U.^.e Sreparation of biblical and non-biblical material in the first a o t e ronic e. He put early Roman events in blank spaces on ’* Ibid., preface of Jerome. Helm 5. H^ Di er Cflrr k ’ pp' xxv*ü-xxxii; Caspar, Bischofsliste pp. 251-273. Helm more°comrdex ifranhì1US aBmu't'-co,umr’ed arrangement; Caspar argued for a subt?et^rP g Ph SLheme· Botb agree that Jerome discarded most of Eusebius’s , " riÄ Bischofsliste pp. 251, 290-291, 296-297. Mosshammer, pp. 72-73, il. η V h (h c 8 k" f0rmat ί° Eusebius’ without considering how much of the Latin version of Eusebius was added by Jerome.

JEROME AND THE GREEK CHRONICLE TRADITION

21

the left-hand pages his predecessor had reserved for salvation history. He cared even less for scientific chronology. He totally neglected Eusebius’s first book. To him, Eusebius, like Africanus and Josephus, was important not so much as a chronographer or an apologist, but as a universal historian.41 Jerome wished to make his own Chronicle a better universal history. In pursuit of this goal he added to Eusebius’s account much material concerning Roman legendary, political, and literary hi­ story.42 His selection of material does not seem to have been the product of extensive research. For his political history he probably used a compilation; his additions to Eusebius’s account of Roman imperial history are mostly details concerning the origins, accessions and deaths of the emperors, as well as brief notices about short-lived usurpers ignored by Eusebius.43 Jerome separated his continuation from his amplified translation of Eusebius only by a very short statement of authorship: “Up to this point Eusebius, the companion of the martyr Pamphilus, wrote this history. To this we add the following.”44 Nevertheless, the continu­ ation has a character of its own, largely determined by the author’s particular interests. Although Jerome did not ignore the political or military events of his time, and recorded a good number of natural prodigies, he was chiefly interested in ecclesiastical affairs; thus doctrinal struggles occupied a central place. In his opinion, forth­ rightly stated in the chronicle, the history of the church since Constantine’s baptism was one of discord and the “rapine of churches,”45 meaning their seizure by heretics. He devoted many entries to the rise of Arianism and the orthodox resistance to that heresy. Jerome’s account of such matters was mainly biographical. Unlike the Greek historian Socrates a half-century later, he did not give prominence to church councils and their decisions, but rather emphasized the actions of the emperors and individual bishops. Among the latter he applauded those who “never involved them41 Caspar, Bischofsliste, pp. 293-298. 42 Ibid., pp. 296. Entries added by Jerome are distinguished in Helm’s edition by an asterisk. 41 Mommsen argued that Jerome used at least five political sources: “ Über die Quellen der Chronik des Hieronymus,” Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1905-1913), 7: 606-632. Helm has shown that Jerome did not use the known political sources directly: “ Hieronymus und Eutrop,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 76 (1927): 138-170, 254-306. For a detailed investigation of the entire chronicle see Alfred Schoene, Diè Wellchronik des Eusebius in ihrer Bearbeitung durch Hieronymus (Berlin, 1900). 44 Jerome, Chron. ab. Abr. 2342. Helm 231. 45 Ibid., ab. Abr. 2353. Helm 234.

22

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

selves in Arian depravity,”46 while recounting the crimes o f the heretics and the capitulations o f weak-spirited or corrupt bishops. He narrowly examined the claims to office o f several bishops he considered heretics, such as Meletius o f Antioch, Macedonius o f Constantinople, and Cyril o f Jerusalem, and not surprisingly found them all invalid.47 This process o f judgement is more personal than anything found in Eusebius’s C a n o n s , the more so as Jerome’s judgements are highly idiosyncratic.48 The imprint o f Jerom e’s personality on his continuation went beyond such expressions o f party allegiance. Where Eusebius’s prose was dry and extremely terse, Jerom e’s abounded in trenchant remarks and well-turned phrases. A number o f notices in the continuation were obviously included because o f their connection with Jerome himself. Mention o f the fame o f the Roman rhetor Donatus was accompanied by the remark that Donatus was Jerom e’s own teacher.49 The death o f the great monk Antony was an opportunity for Jerome to advertise his brief book on Antony’s (supposed) predecessor, Paul o f Thebes.50 This direct and indirect self-promotion — o f which there are several more examples — is entirely characteristic o f him.51 Jerom e’s translation o f Eusebius has long been prized. It uniquely preserves a vast amount o f chronological information, and Jerome deserves credit for providing the Latin world with this irreplaceable material. H is continuation was equally significant for the develop­ ment o f Latin historiography, for it was the precursor o f further continuations. One important feature was the way Jerome joined his work to Eusebius’s account with a very simple statement o f authorship. This procedure showed how simple further continuation could be. At the same time Jerome presented his C h r o n ic le as a literary work, directly through his introductory remarks on the literary craft o f translation, as well as indirectly through his personal and anecdotal touches in the text. Thus his continuation o f Eusebius served as an easily-imitated model for chroniclers who merely wanted to add a brief account o f their own times to an authoritative 4,1 Ibid., ab. Abr. 2386. Helm 246 (praise of Lucifer, Gregory, and Philo): ab. Abr. 2378. Helm 242 (praise of Paulinus). 47 Ibid., ab. Abr. 2344, 2358, 2364. Helm 232, 235, 237. 4* Grützmacher, I: 194. w Jerome, C hron. ab. Abr. 2370. Helm 239. Ibid., ab. Abr. 2372. Helm 240. M See Grützmacher, I: 194; Kelly, pp. 75, 177-178. Jerome was also not above writing friends who had offended him out of later editions.

Ί'ΗΗ CONSULAR ANNALS

23

Christian world chronicle, yet allowed further continuators some scope to express their opinions and their literary ambitions, if they were so inclined. Jerome’s prestige as a translator of the Bible did nothing to diminish the popularity of the Chronicle. It was a model with particular appeal to those interested in recording the recent history of the church.

3. The Consular Annals i. Characteristics of the Annals

Almost simultaneously with the publication of Jerome’s Chronicle, a second type of annalistic record began to circulate in the western provinces. The consular annals, although they did not benefit from the prestige of a famous author, were arguably as popular as Jerome’s Chronicle, and played an important role in shaping the western chronicle tradition. The annals differ considerably from Jerome’s complex and literary work, and from the Christian world chronicles that we have looked at so far. They are not explorations of salvation history with pretensions to describe the entire course of universal time. The synchronisms between ancient dynasties so important to eastern scholars are entirely absent from the annals. Rather, they resemble the early Greek pinakes that were the raw material of the scientific chronographers. The consular annals are annotated lists of magi­ strates that served as practical records of the recent past. Their chronology is based on the consular/ai?/, or list of Roman consuls. Since the beginning of the Roman Republic, the years had been named after the two annual consuls, who in imperial times took office with great ceremony on January 1. Although the consuls had by late antiquity long since lost their position as the highest magistrates of the state, their office was still an honored one, and consular reckoning remained one of the official methods of de­ signating the years. The chronology used by the annals was, therefore, not a learned construct, but a contemporary system understood by most readers.52The practical rather than antiquarian focus of the annals is equally evident in the selection of events. Although one surviving example of the annals, the Consularia Hydatiana, begins its list of consuls with the inception of the ” On consular dating in late antiquity see now Roger S. Bagnali et al.. Consuls o f the Later Roman Empire (Atlanta, 1987).

24

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

Republic, others with Julius Caesar, none of them records many events before the fourth century. The emphasis was on the period since Constantine. The annals also reflect a lay point of view, rather than the ecclesiastical orclerical one evident in the Christian world chronicles. Those we possess include some few events of a religious nature, particularly the deaths of martyrs and translations of their relics. But the vast majority pays no attention whatever to details of church politics or dogma, which so interested Eusebius and especially Jerome.53 Instead, political events, those affecting the emperors, the dynasty, and the Roman state, take pride of place. A salient characteristic is the distinctive form of the entries, which are brief, formulaic, and often include dates precise to the day or even the hour. The expression of opinion and the manifestation of personality are quite absent. The annals are also anonymous works. This is attested not only by the manuscript evidence, but also by contemporary writers who we know used the annals.54 These anonymous reference works were widespread and often used in later antiquity. We have several versions of the annals from the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, both in the original Latin and translated into Greek.55 The texts we possess, save for a few fragments, are found invariably in historical and chronographic collections. In late antiquity, too, the annals were commonly 53 An exception is the Spanish section of the Consularia Hydatiana (see below at n. 58). It includes a notice of the “ creation of unity” between Donatists and Catholics in Africa, and two reports of contemporary miracles in the Holy Land with a brief report of how the news came to Spain. This unusual material reflects the interests of its author, the chronicler and bishop Hydatius (see chapter V), and is unparalleled in the other Latin annals. 54 At the end of Jordanes’s mid-sixth-century Roman history, the author, in confirmation of what he said about the troubles of the present, referred his readers to the annales consulumque series for the tragedies of recent times (Jordanes, Romana 388, (MGH: AA, 5: 52)). Gregory of Tours demonstrated the point even more clearly in the second book ofhis history (Historia 2.9(MGH: Script, rer. Merov., 1, Pt. 1: 72-77)). He devoted an entire chapter to an unsuccessful search of the books of earlier historians for the beginnings of the Frankish monarchy. He quoted these sources extensively and names the author of each. Gregory summed up his efforts by saying “such are the accounts which the remaining historians have left us of the Franks, but without recording any names of kings." He then turned to other sources for the origin of the Merovingian line, the “common tradition” and the consular annals, which he referred to as consularia. His entire procedure emphasizes that he did not consider the annals to be history. No doubt a similar evaluation explains the omission of the consular annals from the historical section of Cassiodorus's Institutiones (see n. 1 above). It is certain that Cassiodorus knew of the annals, since he used them as a source for his own chronicle; yet he did not think them worthy of inclusion in a catalogue of literary histories, although he mentioned several chronicles in it. 55 On the priority of the Latin annals, see Mommsen, Consularia Constantinopoliiana (CM, I: 197-247), p. 199.

ΤΗ Η CONSULAR ANNALS

25

included in such collections, of a type we have mentioned in our discussion of Hippolytus. Indeed, the earliest examples of the annals are illustrated, and included in illustrated almanacs composed of a number of anonymous catalogues and reference lists.56 The consular annals, in one form or another, were available by the middle of the fifth century to many historians and chroniclers, who found them to be practical aids in constructing their own accounts of contemporary and near-contemporary events. The annals were utilized and imitated even by those who saw themselves as continuators of Jerome. It should be emphasized that the consular annals were not a single work, but rather a type of record. Perhaps the best way to come to grips with the tradition is to examine the two texts most influential in forming modern ideas of the genre, the Consularia Hydatiana and the Fasti Vindobonenses. Both have been known to scholars for centuries; the Consularia Hydatiana was published by Sirmond in 1619, the Fasti Vindobonenses by Cuspinian in 1553. Their most interesting aspect from an historiographical perspective is that, despite obvious differences, they present an essential similarity of form. The Consularia Hydatiana (hereafter called “the CH”) exists complete in only one manuscript, a ninth-century codex that contains the fullest exemplar of Hydatius’s chronicle, as well as a copy of the Liber Generationis, one of the Latin versions of Hippolytus’s Chronicle.57The CH immediately follows the chronicle of Hydatius in the manuscript. It is entitled Descriptio consulum, ex quo primum ordinati sunt, and begins with the very first consuls of the Roman Republic. At first the CH is nearly indistinguishable from a simple consular list, because until 106 B.C. the only events mentioned are extraordinary changes in government (such as the creation of the decemviri and dictators). The first recorded occurrence not of this type is the birth of Cicero. In the succeeding years a few political and literary events of the late Republic and early Empire are noted, such as the births and deaths of Virgil and Sallust, the conspiracy of Catiline (known to late antiquity through Sallust’s history and Cicero’s orations), the assassination of Julius Caesar, and the (incorrectly dated) assumption of the title of Augustus by Octavian. Milestones of salvation history are also included: the birth and passion of Christ, the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, and the Jewish 56 See above at n. 16 and below at n. 60 and following n. 96. " The CH is to be found in Mommsen’s edition of the Consularia Constantinopolitana (n. 55); for a fuller description of the ms., see below, chapter V, § 3.

26

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

wars. Between the overthrow o f the Jews (dated incorrectly to A .D . 77) and the late third century, notices are again rare. Almost all record either the deaths o f martyrs venerated in Rome or general persecutions. From 261, and especially after 302, entries in the CH are again more frequent. Now, however, they concern events o f public rather than literary or ecclesiastical interest: i.e. the deaths and accessions of emperors and major wars. Also reported are natural prodigies such as eclipses and earthquakes. Precise day dates become common after 304. Indeed, the CH account is o f greatest interest in the fourth century. The previously evident focus on events in the city o f Rome is replaced by a focus on Constantinople that becomes stronger as the annals proceed. Almost every year between 356 and 386 contains an event in New Rome, and many o f these are o f purely local interest. In this section entries are numerous and detailed and almost always precisely dated. After 389 the annals change their character once more. Between that date and the end o f the CH in 468, both the interest in Constantinople and most o f the day dates disappear. The annals are now less detailed and are concerned with western and notably Spanish events. It has generally been accepted that Hydatius both used and continued these annals, and wrote most or perhaps all o f the final eighty-year section.58 From internal evidence, it is clear that the CH began as annotated consular f a s t i compiled in Rome. The original Roman list had at most only a handful o f entries, or perhaps was later edited until it included only a few political notices and some o f religious and literary interest. T h e f a s t i were later used in Constantinople as the basis for a much fuller set o f annals, o f contemporary rather than antiquarian interest. One exemplar was taken to Spain in the late fourth century and found its way into Hydatius’s library. His continuation was little more than a year-list, although some material seems to have been lost in transmission. We know that the annals were continued in the eastern capital as well, for a seventh-century Greek chronicle, the C h r o n ic o n P a s c h a le , preserves much material also found in the C H .59 The most interesting aspect o f the Hydatian annals, aside from the 511 Otto Seeck, “ Idacius und die Chronik von Constantinopel,” N e u e J a h rb ü c h e r fü r 139 (1889): 616, 619; Mommsen, CM, 9: 201. Burgess rejects this attribution in his forthcoming edition of Hydatius (cited in chapter I, n. 6). CM, 1: 203. P h ilo lo g ie u n d P aedagogiis,

π

ii : c o n s u l a r a n n a l s

27

apparently contemporary account of fourth-century Constantinople, is their consistent format. A limited number of subjects is treated in a formulaic manner that remains the same through the Roman, Constantinopolitan and Spanish sections. The usual entry is a simple sentence in passive construction that describes a single event with a minimum of elaboration, although precise dates and locations are often reported. The first entry following a given pair of consuls invariably begins with the phrase “ under these consuls” (His consulibus, abbreviated as His conss.)·, subsequent notices for the same year are connected to the first by the phrase “ in the same year” (in ipso anno, in eo anno) or simply by the word “and” (et). The result is a very spare prose, illustrated below by examples from all three sections of the CH. Rome: (35 B.C.) (34 B.C.) Constantinople: (342) (357)

Spain: (409) (461)

His conss. bellum fugitivorum gestum est. (Actually 42 B.C.) His conss. obiit Cicero interfectus die IIII kal. Mai. (Actually 43 B.C.) His conss. victi Franci a Constante Aug. seu pacati. His conss. introierunt Constantinopolim reliquiae sanctorum apostolorum Andreae et Lucae die V non. Mar. et introivit Constantius Aug. Romae IIII k. Mai. et edidit vicennalia. His conss. barbari Spanias ingressi. His conss. Maiorianus occiditur et Severus efficitur imperator.

A second extensive example of the consular annals is the Fasti Vindobonenses,w so called because until the nineteenth century this annalistic work was known only through a fifteenth-century Vienna manuscript that also includes an important copy of the Roman Calendar o f 354.61 The Fasti Vindobonenses, which are alien to the Calendar, are actually two related sets of consular annals, similar but “ Critical edition in Mommsen, Consularia halica (CM, 1: 249-339); the author of the FV is known as the Anonymus Cuspiniani, after the first editor, Johannes Cuspinian (1553), and the work itself is sometimes referred to by the same name. M Nationalbibliothek ms. 3416. The Calendar o f354 (Chronographus anni CCCLH11, ed. Mommsen, CM, 1: 13-196) the best preserved of the illustrated almanacs of late antiquity, was presented to a man named Valentinus in A.D. 354. Surviving copies, of which there are a number, are lavishly illustrated in pen-and-ink, and include several chronological and geographical lists, of both pagan and Christian origin. There are

28

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

not directly dependent on one another. The recension named by Mommsen the F a s ti V in d o b o n e n s e s p r io r e s 62 (hereafter FV I) has no title and begins with a brief and imperfect list o f the Roman kings. There follow s a notice that says “There were 5044 years from the creation o f the world up to Gaius Julius Caesar. G. Jul. Caesar was the first emperor.” The balance o f this work uses a rather corrupt consular list, written in black, as a chronological framework to date events, which are recorded in red. The annals proper fall into two sections: the first section lists the consuls and events from the first consulate o f Julius Caesar(59 B.C.) to A .D . 403; the second section begins with an event notice for 455 and ends at 493. The manuscript does not acknowledge the break in the continuity o f the annals. The two sections are separated only by three blank lines. The first section o f FV I includes only forty-three historical notices over 462 years. Under som e o f the very early consulates are wellknown events in Roman or ecclesiastical history; some natural prodigies are also recorded. Subsequent to Titus’s victory over the Jews (incorrectly placed in A .D . 78), notices almost disappear for 300 years; there are only eight entries between A .D . 78 and 374, and nearly all concern martyrdoms and persecutions. From 375 until 403, however, the notices are more frequent and most are precisely dated. They chiefly describe imperial accessions, births and deaths, and the elevations and deaths o f usurpers. Also included are the entry into Rome o f Theodosius and H onorius (389), Alaric’s first invasion o f Italy (401), and two prodigies. The latter section o f FV I (A .D . 455-478) is distinct in two ways from the first. The consular list is accurate if incomplete, and appears to have been constructed year-by-year by a contemporary. Second, the notices, though brief, are important as an account o f the illdocumented late fifth century, supplying exact dates for the various lists of the natal days of the emperors, auspicious and inauspicious hours of the days of the week, a calendar of Roman city festivals, consular fasti, fasti of the city prefects, an Easter cycle, lists of the burial places and festivals of Roman bishops and martyrs, the earliest version of the L ib e r P o n tific a lis , one version of the L ib e r G e n e ra tio n is, and a city chronicle of Rome, the C h ro n ic a U rbis R o m a e . There is also a topographical description of the city of Rome. The origin of the various parts and the manuscript tradition of the whole are discussed by Mommsen and by Henri Stern, L e C a le n d rie r de 3 5 4 (Paris, 1953). 62 The question of which recension preceded the other, and related questions of the origin of the FV in their present form cannot be discussed here. See Mommsen's non­ committal account (CM, 1: 263-264) as well as the discussions of Holder-Egger (n. 68 below), Kaufmann (n. 80) and Cessi (n. 89).

THE CONSULAR ANNALS

29

changes of government and for some of the military events of the period, especially those of the war between Odoacerand Theodoric. Two earthquakes, but no religious events, are recorded. The writer of this part of FV I was quite familiar with the city of Ravenna, which was at that point the Italian capital, and it is generally agreed that the second section is the work of a contemporary living in or near the city.63 The second recension of the Fasti Vindobonenses, called posteriores by Mommsen (hereafter FV II), is a much more confused work. The FV II begins with the words “G. Jul. Caesar is elevated as first emperor of Rome,” and continues as consular fasti that begin with Caesar’s first consulate. Again the consuls are written in black and the historical entries in red. The fasti are very similar to those of the FV I, but are neither the source of FV I nor derived from it. The order of the consuls in FV II is very badly disturbed, and the years 46-76, 388-437, and 456-494 are missing. FV II, unlike FV I, does include the years 438-454 and 495-539. For the years covered by both recensions, FV II is generally less informative, including some but not all of the entries found in FV I. FV I does record events not mentioned in the other recension, and outlines an Easter table as well: the end of each eighty-four-year cycle is marked.64 The unique continuation from 495-539 has little authority; its consular list is disordered and inaccurate, and the few noted events are all misdated.65 The similarities of the FV to the CH are striking. Both recensions in the Vienna codex resemble the Hydatian work in being brief, anonymous annals based on a consular list. As in the CH, the early sections of the FV contain a few events of mainly antiquarian interest and the later parts a much fuller account of political affairs. The entries in the FV are formulaic and very like those oftheCH, as three examples demonstrate:

63 See the detailed discussion of this point by Kaufmann, in the articles cited below in n. 80. 1,4 The Easter cycle notices are inaccurately placed in the Vienna ms. The significance of this fact has been debated by the various commentators (see n. 62). 65 The death of Anastasius and the elevation of Justin (518) are here dated to 503; the execution of Boethius and Symmachus (524) and the death of Theodoric (526) are dated to 523, as are the death of Justin and the accession of Justinian (527). Tire deaths of Kings Athalaric (534) and Thiudihad (536), the election of Witigis (536) as well as Belisarius’s entries into Naples and Rome (536) are all dated to 539. These events constitute the entire historical record of the post-495 FV II.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

30

(303) (464) (488)

H is cons, ecclesiae dem olitae sunt et libri dom inici com busti sunt et passa est sancta Eufem ia XVI kl. O ctobris. His cons, occisus est Beorgor rex Alanorum Bergam o ad pede m ontis V III idus Februarias. His cons, arsit pontus A polinaris noctu in pascha XV kald. M aias.

Finally, parts o f the FV preserve contemporary material at least as valuable as that found in the CH. The similarities and differences between the CH and the FV and other, less extensive, versions o f the annals pose an obvious question: where did these works originate and how were they disseminated to far-separated parts o f the Roman world? It is a question o f importance to modern scholars, since the annals seem to preserve, in their precisely-dated entries, unique information about a poorly documented period. But since the annals are deliberately impersonal and were anonym ous even in their original versions it is usually impossible to identify either the author or even the number o f authors o f a given set o f annals. Nor is it easy to ascertain when a set o f annals, or the parts thereof, were written. Thus, where there is a substantial amount o f agreement on the development and significance o f the Christian world chronicles, there is no such consensus about the consular annals. The scholar­ ship on the subject is scattered; much o f it is over a century old, and predates subsequent discoveries o f manuscript material.66 The new manuscripts, the Golenisòev papyrus and smaller fragments un­ earthed in Berlin and Merseburg, put the origins o f the consular annals in a new perspective. Before we can examine that evidence, however, a review o f past interpretations is necessary. ii. Modern discussions o f the consular annals The beginning o f modern interest in the consular annals may be dated to 1836, when Georg Waitz identified in Copenhagen a previously unknown manuscript o f the chronicle o f Prosper. Its text included interpolations and a unique continuation to 625, both of which contained valuable information about Italian affairs from the

6‘ The best discussions arc Wattenbach-Levison, D e u tsc h la n d s G esc h ic h tsq u e lle n im Heft 1 (Weimer, 1952), pp. 54-57 and the more current Bagnali et al., pp. 46-57. M itte la lte r : V o rze it u n d K a r o lin g e r

ΤΗ Fi CONSUI.AR ANNALS

31

fifth century.67 Soon after the discovery Bethmann pointed out that the new material was related both in form and in content to the FV account of the same period.68Much of the Copenhagen continuation was obviously drawn from a source also used by the FV, and the new manuscript gave a more complete version of the source. Over the next thirty years, more fragments of the postulated common source were identified. Theodor Mommsen, in his 1850 edition of the FV, showed that the Viennafasti closely resembled the consular list of the Barbarus Scaligeri, an anonymous seventhcentury translator of a lost Alexandrian chronicle. He also demon­ strated that the post-455 section of FV I was related to the sixthcentury biography of Theodoric of the Anonymus Valesianus.69 A few years later, when Mommsen published his investigation of Cassiodorus’s chronicle of 519, he was able to show that its account of the late fifth century was also very similar to FV I.70 Similarly, an article by Waitz in 1865 sought to demonstrate that the surviving sources for the reign of Odoacer, or more precisely for the years 472-493, all derived from a single set of contemporary consular annals written in Ravenna. He compared the reports of Italian events of these years in ten different sources so as to show that, despite small variations, their reports had a common origin. Waitz located the source in the Italian capital and named it “the Ravenna annals.”71 67 First discussed in print by Pertz, in Archiv, 7 (1839): 251; first edited by G. Hille, De continuatione Prosperi a. 641 Havniense (diss. Berlin, 1866). “ Ludwig Bethmann, in Archiv, 10 (1841): 350 in an article referred to by Oswald Holder-Egger, “ Untersuchungen über einige annalistische Quellen zur Geschichte des fünften und sechsten Jahrhunderts: III, Die Ravennater Annalen," Neues Archiv, 1 (1876): 215. ^ Tire edition of the FV was included in Mommsen, “ Über den Chronographen vom 354,” Abhandlungen der königlichen sächsichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft, Phil.-hist. Kl., 2 (1850): 656-693. The relevant parts of the work of the Barbarus Scaligeri are in Mommsen’s edition of the Consularia Italica (CM, 1: 274-293; introduction, p. 272); for the full text see Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum libri duo, (1866; reprint ed., Dublin-Zurich, 1967) 1: Appendix, pp. 175-239. The anonymous “ barbarian” translator is named after his first editor, Scaliger. Mommsen’s edition of the Anonymus Valesianus can be found in the Consularia Italica (CM, 1: 306-329; introduction pp. 259-262). 7,1 Mommsen. “ Die Chronik des Cassiodorus Senator," Abhandlungen der könig­ lichen sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft, Phil.-Hist. Kl., 3 (1861): 547-696. 71 G. Waitz., “ Die ravennatischen Annalen als Hauptquelle für Geschichte des Odovakar,” Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (Göttin­ gen), (1865), pp. 84-114. Waitz may have been influenced by Pallmann’s discussion of the year before; see below at note 73. The ten sources specified by Waitz. as containing excerpts from the Ravenna annals: the chronicles of Cassiodorus, Marcellinus, and Marius of Avenchcs, the Vatican continuation of Prosper and the attached Paschale Campanum (an annotated sixth-century consular Easter table), the Anonymus Valesianus, Jordanes, Paul the Deacon, and Agnellus's history of the bishops of Ravenna. See Mommsen’s edition of the Consularia Italica (CM, 1: 249-273).

12

THli HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

Two years later, another version of the consular annals came to light when De Rossi published the Excerpta Sangallensia for the first time. This work, found in a ninth-century St. Gall manuscript containing excerpts of the Calendar o f 354, is a very brief epitome, not a full set of annals. The epitome lists the consuls of twenty-five years between 390 and 573 and the events of those years. The events include nineteen natural prodigies (earthquakes, eclipses, cattle plagues, etc.) and a few political occurrences (the death of Stilicho, Alaric’s sack of Rome, high points of Justinian’s Gothic war, and the murder of Alboin, king of the Lombards). It was obvious at once that the epitome and the FV shared a source that was fuller than either recension of the FV; it was also clear that the immediate source of the Excerpta Sangallensia extended farther than the FV. The Excerpta Sangallensia thus provided more evidence of the influence of the “ Ravenna annals.”72 By this point scholars had begun to theorize about the origins of the annals. First in the field was Reinhold Pallmann, who in 1864 proposed that the existing annals were the remnants of official court publications. He believed that the FV represented the Western, Ravennate tradition, and the CH the eastern, Constantinopolitan tradition.73The details of Pallmann’s theory we re quickly rejected by both sympathetic and hostile critics, but his central idea, that the consular annals were compiled and published by the imperial government, survived. The “official annals” theory was reformu­ lated by Oswald Holder-Egger in an article of 1876. As the most important single discussion of the annals, one still influential today, it is worth examining in detail.74 Holder-Egger believed that the consular annals began as an official set offasti first published in the fourth century. He theorized that these fasti were originally a year-list published for the practical use of government offices, merchants, and jurists. The fourthcentury fasti mentioned only a few events as an aide mémoire, but slowly came to include more information until, in the late fifth century, they provided their readers with a respectable amount of historical material. Holder-Egger’s view of the growth of the fasti 72 Giovanni De Rossi, “ Excerptum ex Chronica Horosii,’’ Bullettino di archaeologia cristiana, ser. 1, 5 (1867): 17-23. 71 Reinhold Pallmann, Die Geschichte der Völkerwanderung (Gotha, 1863-4). Pallmann was also the first to contend that Marius of Avenches, the Paschale Campanum, and Agnellus used the annals. 14 For citation see n. 68 above.

THE CONSULAR ANNALS

33

into annals is analogous to the then-current theory of the develop­ ment of the Carolingian annals from monastic Easter tables.75 Holder-Egger compared the consular annals to the statistical reports of a modern government, and considered it pointless to try to discern a court Tendenz in the annals, as Pallmann had. The consistently impersonal, formulaic recitation of facts found in the FV and CH revealed them for what they were, utilitarian reference works. Holder-Egger’s conception of the annals led him to assert that they had no proper author or authors: reissued over the years as practical considerations demanded, they were written in a deli­ berately consistent format. By close investigation of their surviving remnants, different recensions might be identified, but these re­ censions had never been meant to be separate works.76 Holder-Egger inferred from the surviving fragments that the official fasti had been issued in several of the important cities of the empire; he named specifically Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, Arles, and Ravenna.77 He was chiefly interested in the influential Ravenna annals. Following the path laid down by earlier researchers, he identified many different users of the annals. In one important respect, however, Holder-Egger went beyond his pre­ decessors. He contended that material derived from the Ravenna annals could be easily and certainly detected in surviving works, even when only one author preserved a given bit of information, by the formulaic style of reporting, by the use of precise dates, and in some cases, merely by the assumption that the Ravenna annals must have included a given event.78 On the basis of this hypothesis, HolderEgger went so far as to reconstruct the entire text of the Ravenna annals from 379 to 572.79 Not all were convinced that the annals could be proved to be official or even semi-official. The foremost critic was G. Kaufmann, who in three articles, two in 1876, the third in 1884, tackled the arguments first of Pallmann, then of Holder-Egger.80Kaufmann saw 75 Holder-Egger, “ Die Ravennater Annalen,” pp. 238-247. Holder-Egger con­ sidered the consular list of the Calendar o f 354 to be an early example of the official fasti. The few notices in this list can, however, hardly be considered to be primarily practical. See also below, in part iti of this section following n. 109. 76 Ibid., pp. 244-245. 77 Ibid., pp. 241-242. 7* Ibid., pp. 255-256 (style), 278-279 (precision), 328 (assumed inclusion). 79 Ibid., pp. 347-368. *° G. Kaufmann, “ Die Fasten der spätere Kaiserzeit," Philologus, 34 (1876): 235295; in the same volume, “Zu den Handschriften des Canon paschale des Victorius und Mommsen V ili...,” pp. 385-413, 729-739; “Die Fasten v. Constantinopel und die Fasten v. Ravenna”, Philologus, 42 (1884): 471-510.

34

ΤΗΙ·; HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

three main weaknesses in the “official annals” theory. First, he noted that there was no testimony whatever for official annals-keeping in all the literature of late antiquity.81 Second, he saw no evidence that either the CH or the FV were examples of official annals.82In the case of the FV, the theory and the facts seemed particularly far apart. Only one part of the FV, the section covering 455^493, was definitely a contemporary account originating in Ravenna. With a minute examination of the consular lists Kaufmann showed that other parts had been reworked extensively; they could not be considered strictly contemporary and showed no signs of an origin in Ravenna. The Ravenna annals properly defined were restricted to the years 455493, and, said Kaufmann, rather than being a full and official record of great events, they had never been much fuller than the copy preserved in the Vienna manuscript. He minimized the influence even of these diminished annals, arguing that the only later authors who could be shown to have used them were Cassiodorus, the Anonymus Valesianus, and the Copenhagen Continuation of Pro­ sper.83 Third, Kaufmann believed that the significance of the similarities between the various versions of the western annals had been exaggerated. Those similarities merely showed that the compilers shared the use of common technical expressions and an interest in great state events. The differences between versions, on the other hand, were proof that most of these annalistic works were the product of independent composition. In the light of the relationship between the consular list of the Barbarus Scaligeri and that of the FV, Kaufmann did not feel he could deny that some fasti had attained wide circulation. The wide diffusion of a certain formulaic style was also evident. Kaufmann postulated that this was a result of the circulation of city chronicles through the Roman world.84 Kaufmann’s critique of the “official annals” theory was, despite some weaknesses, convincing enough to inspire more work on the question. In 1889, Otto Seeck wrote a long article on the annals of Constantinople that presented a different approach to the origin and dissemination of the consular annals.85 He argued that the similarities of the early parts of both the surviving Western annals and various *' Kaufmann, "Die Fasten der späteren Kaiserzeit," pp. 260-261. Ibid., pp. 259-261, 294-295. *■’ Ibid., pp. 272-275, 282-283, 294-295; Kaufmann, “Zu den Handschriften ” pp 407, 733-734, 737-739. *4 Kaufmann, “ Die Fasten der spätere Kaiserzeit,” p. 294. *■' Seeck, “ Idacius und die Chronik von Constantinopel” (see n. 58).

35

works that used them demonstrated that all were derived from a Constantinopolitan original that extended to 419. He then turned to an investigation of the Constantinopolitan annals as exemplified by the CH. The CH seemed to show that year-by-year composition of the annals began only in the period 367-375, and that the earlier parts were compiled from a variety of sources.86 Seeck denied that either the part of the annals composed by contemporaries (c.367-389) or its source was an official work. He proposed instead that the annals were the product of Constantinopolitan booksellers. These mer­ chants, said Seeck, based their annals on fasti and calendars such as those contained in the Calendar o f354, and made constant additions to their exemplars thereafter to keep their products up to date. Seeck further suggested that such annals could, like the Calendar of354, be personalized for distinguished patrons.87 In the case of the annals, this was done by inserting entries recording the patron’s own deeds. Such an entry, said Seeck, was the notice in the CH describing the accomplishments of Cynegius; the CH itself appeared to derive from a copy of the annals brought to Spain by Cynegius’s widow when she carried his body back to his native land.88 A similar personal entry concerning Clearchus, urban prefect of Constantinople, is found in Jerome’s chronicle, which was written in that city; Seeck contended, rather speculatively, that the entry was copied by Jerome from Clearchus’s personal edition of the annals. The nineteenth-century debate on the origin of the consular annals came to a close in 1892, with Mommsen’s publication of the first volume of the Chronica Minora,89It included new editions of both the Constantinopolitan and western annals. Mommsen’s discussion of *6 Ibid., pp. 624-625. Seeck believed that Hydatius also had a western consular source for events between 271-306. He argued that the greater inaccuracy of dates for this period showed that the notices for this section did not come from the annals of Constantinople. See ibid., pp. 630-632. This suggestion has not been accepted by later writers. *' For the Calendar o f 354, see n. 61 above. ** Consularia ConstaMinopolitana s.a. 388, 1 (CM, 1: 244-245). m Excluded from this discussion is the massive and erudite monograph by Roberto Cessi, “ Studi sulle fonti dell’età gotica e longobarda, I: ‘Fasti Vindobonenses,’” Archivio Muratoriano, 16/17 ( 1916): 293-405. Cessi discussed the origin of the consular lists in great detail, but his theory of the origin of the historical notices is essentially Holder-Egger’s. Without introducing any new evidence about the FV’s source. Cessi tried to restore the annals as Holder-Egger did. He believed Holder-Egger’s reconstruction of the official annals could be put on a firmer footing by recognizing that the annals were strictly formulaic: each entry was originally a single sentence in passive construction concerning one person and an event taking place at a single time. All other details in the entries as they exist today in surviving annalistic works came from other, lost sources. Without proof of its premise, Ccssi’s curious reconstruction is of doubtful use.

36

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

the annals was a reaction against Holder-Egger’s treatment — Mommsen likened Holder-Egger’s reconstruction of the “Ravenna annals” to dream interpretation.90 The “official annals” theory was firmly rejected in favor of Seeck’s theory that the originators were booksellers, probably in Constantinople.91 Without accepting that the “ Ravenna annals” were a single source continued through the centuries, Mommsen nevertheless acknowledged that the influential Italian annalistic tradition (which he called the Consularia Italica) had a certain unity. Mommsen believed that there were in fifth- and sixth-century Italy a number of related versions of the annals, differing from each other by virtue of the additions, abbreviations, and reworkings of both copyists and compilators. Mommsen therefore rejected as deceptive Kaufmann’s approach of attributing great significance to every variation in the consular lists or in the entries of the surviving annals.92* In order that such a diverse tradition might be represented without distortion or reduction to a fallacious reconstruction, Mommsen adopted an unusual but clear format for his edition of the Consularia Italica. Selecting seven works he considered the best representatives of the tradition, he set them out in parallel columns. This arrange­ ment conveniently displayed the extent of the common material.95 Despite the authority generally accorded to his text, there has been some reluctance, particularly among German scholars, to accept Mommsen’s conclusions. One still finds references to the loose term “Ravenna annals,” and the theory that the consular annals were official publications is still alive.94 Perhaps students of the fall of the Roman empire are reluctant to weaken the authority of one of the few extant sources. It is certainly convenient to believe that there was an official effort to record important events and that in the annals we have access to the results of that effort. Yet no one has answered the strongest argument of the critics, made by Kaufmann in 1876, that not one single piece of contemporary testimony attests the existence (CM, I), p. 258. 91 Ibid., p. 256; also p. 253 n. 2, p. 254. 92 Ibid., p. 254. 9' Ibid., p. 251; the seven sources selected by Mommsen were the Anonymus Valesianus (posterior), FV I, FV II, Paschale Campanum, Continuatio Havniensis Prosperi, Barbarus Scaligeri, and Agnellus. 94 See Bernhard Bischoff and Wilhelm Koehler, “ Eine illustrierte Ausgabe der spätantiken ravennater Annalen,” M edieval Studies in M em ory o f A. Kingsley Porter, cd. W.R.W. Koehler (Cambridge, Ma., 1939) p. 126, for an endorsement of the official annals theory; see the cautious discussion in Wattenbach-Levison, pp. 55-56. M.A. Wes was also influenced by Holder-Egger. 90 Consularia h alica

THE CONSULAR ANNALS

37

of official annals. In the past century there has been intensive research into the structure of late Roman government, and it has found no officer or bureau responsible for issuing such a record.95In the absence of contemporary testimony, the various annalistic works of the fourth and later centuries are the only real evidence on the question, and the critics have shown that this evidence can be explained in other ways. Kaufmann demonstrated how both the selection of events recorded by the CH and the FV and the condition of their consular lists offer many difficulties to a theory of official origin. Both Mommsen and Seeck acknowledged the force of his arguments, if implicitly. Their discussions rest on an acceptance of Kaufmanns detailed criticism of Holder-Egger’s position; each believed that the surviving annals were more probably produced by a multitude of individuals without government intervention.96 On the other hand, both Mommsen and Seeck rejected Kauf­ manns effort to minimize the influence of the western consular annals. Mommsen was particularly impressed by the vigor of the Western tradition. For instance, he followed Holder-Egger in granting the existence of western consular annals in the early fifth century, a point only later proved by the discovery of the Merseburg fragment (see below). There can be no doubt that consular annals were an important form of recordkeeping in late antiquity. Can we account for the origin and strength of that tradition? iii. Origin and Influence of the Consular Annals

Two alternatives have been offered to the “official annals” theory. Kaufmann believed that the annals began as city chronicles of the great metropoleis of the empire. In his view these chronicles were often sent from one city to another, and so common annalistic material was disseminated throughout the empire. The weakness of this theory is that Kaufmann’s city chronicles are just Holder-Egger’s official annals attributed to local governments rather than the ,5 Johannes Malalas, a sixth-century Greek historian who used the annals of Constantinople, refers to άκτα or public records of his native Antioch, and to those who kept them: Chronographia 18.178 ed. Ludwig Dindorf (Bonn, 1831), p. 443.19. What these records were is obscure, and there is no obvious connection between them and the annals that already existed in the fourth century. In the fourth century itself, Ammianus Marcellinus knew of tabularia publica and referred to them for the text of Constantius II’s official proclamations: Amm. Marc. 16.12.70. ed. C.U. Clark (Berlin, 1910-15), p. 103. Again, neither the archives nor the proclamations Ammianus discusses can be connected to the surviving annals. K Kaufmann, “ Die Fasten v. Constantinopel,” p. 473.

38

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

imperial one.97Their existence is equally improvable and their nature equally obscure. Seeck’s theory is more interesting. H e explained the similarities of the surviving eastern and western annals by a com m on origin in Constantinople. He attributed the creation o f their characteristic form to the booksellers o f the eastern capital, who compiled and sold chronological works similar to the C a l e n d a r o f 3 5 4 , and who had a business interest in keeping their exemplars o f the annals up to date. Seeck propounded his theory on slight evidence, but since he published his article new material has been found that supports both the Constantinopolitan origin o f the annals as we know them and the role o f booksellers in their dissemination. Since the beginning o f this century three fragmentary illustrated sets o f annals, two in Greek and one in Latin, have been unearthed. These discoveries provide us with more information about the appearance and context o f the annals in late antiquity than was available to scholars o f the nineteenth century.

★ The first new set o f annals came to light in 1906, when Bauer and Strzygowski published the G oleniscev papyrus, a poorly preserved codex o f the fifth century containing an important Alexandrian chronographic collection. Am ong its several chronological and geographical catalogues were Greek consular annals related to both the FV and the chronicle o f the Barbarus Scaligeri, a long-known translation o f a similar Alexandrian work. Bauer concluded from an investigation o f both the illustrations and the somewhat faulty text that the newly-discovered chronicle or almanac was produced in quantity in a workshop.98 A second fragmentary set o f consular annals was published in 1937 by Lietzm ann." The fragment, found in Berlin, is a single page from a papyrus codex, probably o f the fifth century. It is written in Greek in two colum ns, and illustrated with pen-and-ink drawings that were subsequently colored. Each picture is a frameless miniature placed in a break in one o f the text columns directly after the entry it illustrates. ” To be fair to Kaufmann, it must be noted that his theory was formulated independently of Holdcr-Egger's, and like the other was an attempt to explain the variety of annalistic material more plausibly than Pallmann had. m Bauer and Strzygowski, p. 16 (quantity production). ” Hans Lietzmann, “ Ein Blatt aus einer antiken Weltchronik,” Quantulacumque: Studies P resented to K irsopp Lake, ed. by R. Casey, S. Lake, and A . Lake (London, 1937), pp. 339-348. Reprinted in Texte und Untersuchungen, 67 (1958): 420-429.

39

Lietzmann considered his discovery to be the remnant of a work similar to the illustrated almanac of Bauer and Strzygowski, but smaller and of poorer quality, and thus probably meant for a humbler market.100The text of the fragment, which refers to the late third and early fourth centuries, is of great interest. Both the consular fasti and the historical entries — which note martyrdoms, imperial events beginning with Constantine, the dedication of Constantinople, and the entry of relics into that city — are related to both the FV and the CH. In particular, every historical entry but one in the fragment finds a parallel in one of the other two annals.101 The evidence of these Greek fragments was shown to be relevant to the form of the Latin consular annals in 1939, when a third remnant of illustrated annals was discovered and published by Bischoff and Koehler. The new manuscript, found in Merseburg, is half a page from an eleventh-century copy of illustrated Latin consular annals covering the years from 411 to 454; it is a faithful reproduction of a fifth or sixth-century original.102The quality of both the text and the illustrations is mediocre. The text (which is arranged in three columns and includes the years 411-413, 421-423,427-429,434-437, 439, 44CM43, 452-454) is very similar to that of the FV, corre­ sponding in several places to known remnants of the Italian annals: in one case the fragment gives a Ravennate report for an earthquake whose Roman manifestation is mentioned in the FV and the Excerpta Sangallensia. The text is careless in that it twice omits consulates while including events of the years, and it has other lesser mistakes as well. In Bischoffs opinion this carelessness was more probably the fault of the sixth-century source than of the eleventh-century copyist, since the mistakes in the text contrast with the care with which the illustrations were copied.103 The fragment’s pen-and-ink illustrations are of great interest. Like those of the Berlin fragment, the pictures are frameless miniatures placed in breaks in the text-columns, but before, rather than after, the relevant entry. The ten surviving pictures use late antique artistic conventions, and they fall into only seven distinct types. In three instances where the text reports the execution of prominent men, the accompanying pictures are extremely similar in content, showing the "" Ibid., p. 339. "" Ibid., pp. 342-348. The single exception, at a. 305 (p. 346), is illegible as it stands. 102 Bischoff and Koehler (cited above n. 7), pp. 126, 136-137. The dating to the sixth century given by Bischoff is scarcely certain, based as it is on Holder-Egger’s unproved division of the existing tradition into recensions. 101 Ibid., pp. 126, 129-135.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

appropriate number o f corpses wrapped for burial. Likewise, two entries reporting earthquakes are illustrated by identical symbolic representations.104 The Merseburg text is very important for our knowledge o f how the Latin annals appeared in the fifth and sixth centuries. Like the Berlin fragment, the new text confirms the multi-columned format o f the annals, which Holder-Egger had postulated to explain mistakes in later annalistic works, and which can be seen in FV I, preserved though it is in a much later m anuscript.105 The Merseburg fragment shows as well that illustrated annals were produced in Italy. Bischoff takes it alm ost for granted that the source o f this text came from a bookseller’s workshop, and certainly such an origin would explain the preplanned, stereotyped form o f the illustrations.106 The slight variations o f some entries from other known texts show us that the annalistic tradition contained different recensions even in late antiquity. In short, Bischoff and Koehler have apparently given us, at one remove, a text o f the Latin consular annals produced by booksellers as Seeck’s theory requires. The evidence that has been discovered since M ommsen published the C h r o n ic a M in o r a , taken as a whole, show s us how the consular annals were produced and circulated in late antiquity. Surviving manuscripts amply demonstrate the popularity o f illustrated al­ manac-like reference works in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, especially in the Greek world, and the ease with which consular annals could be included as one catalogue o f facts am ong others. It is remarkable that all the illustrated Greek works o f this type include consular annals. The annals included in the various surviving almanacs and fragments are not identical, but they all derive from a single tradition. Both the f a s t i and historical entries that make up the extant Greek annals are related to each other and to the known Latin annals. The Berlin fragment, the most important o f the consular texts discovered this century, demonstrates the unity o f the annalistic tradition, east and west, Latin and Greek, at an early stage. The entries for the third and fourth centuries preserved in the fragment include material found in both the Italian FV and the Constantinopolitan CH . Lietzmann postulated that the compiler o f the annals o f

"" Ibid., p. 130. los Holder-Egger, “Die Ravennater Annalen,” p. 233; Bischoffand Koehler, p. 135, n. 26. m Ibid., pp. 126, 130.

TUI; CONSULAR ANNALS

41

the Berlin fragment had both the Italian and Constantinopolitan annals before him, and used the latter to supplement a faulty copy of the former.107 It is more likely, however, that the Berlin text is merely one more example of the prolific annalistic tradition, and is derived from the common source of the FV and the CH. The Berlin manuscript also affords important support for Seeck’s theory that the consular annals originated in Constantinople, for its source was evidently produced in the eastern capital. The earlier sections of the Berlin annals, like the early parts of the FV and CH, mention only a few events of interest to a Roman audience, in the case of the Berlin fragment only two martyrdoms that were celebrated in Rome. As in the other works, the record becomes fuller with the elevation of Constantine. Only then does the compiler begin to report political events — the accessions and deaths of emperors. He also includes two events that specifically concern the city of Constantinople. One of the two entries, which records the dedication of the city, is paralleled by a notice in the CH ; the other, the record of the entrance of the relics of Andrew and Luke into the capital, is found both in the western FV and in the related Greek annals preserved by the Barbarus Scaligeri.108 Thus the Berlin fragment confirms the evidence of the CH, in showing that the use of the consular fasti for an extensive if concise record of contemporary events began in Constantinople in the early or mid-fourth century. It was from there that the annals spread. By the end of the fourth century they were being used in Alexandria in Greek and Italy in Latin, in versions that still show, despite the addition of local material, the influence of a Constantinopolitan source.109 An interesting light on the dissemination of the annals is cast by the Calendar of 354. It is the most completely preserved of the illustrated almanacs, and is a fourth-century product of undoubted Roman origin.110 It includes an annotated list of consuls and uses consular lists as bases for both a paschal table and a list of city 1117 Lietzmann, p. 340. 11.8 Ibid., pp. 344, 347-348 (entries for a. 330, 336). 11.9 The annals preserved by the Barbarus Scaligeri might be taken to support an Alexandrian origin for the annalistic tradition, since they contain some local events from the early fourth century. The significant point is, however, that the common material of the fourth-century annals is closely connected with Constantinople, while only Alexandrian annals (those of the Golenisicv papyrus and the source of the Barbarus Scaligeri) preserve Egyptian material. The amount of local material found in the Alexandrian records, although not negligible, is not comparable in detail with that found in either the Italian or Constantinopolitan tradition. See also Mommsen’s remarks in CM, 1: 199. 110 See n. 61 above.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

prefects. The collection is precisely the sort of work in which one would expect to find the annals. But the Calendar is itself evidence, if negative evidence, that westerners were not yet familiar with the consular annals as we know them. The main set offasti is in no way a record of contemporary events. It includes only eight historical entries, the most recent noting the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. In none of the manuscripts of the Calendar was this consular list continued past 354, nor was it ever made the basis for later annals. There was, in fact, no political history whatever in the Calendar."1 When a later user wished to remedy this lack of recent historical material, he found no better source than the archetype of the FV, which recorded contemporary events no earlier than 378. The insertion of the FV into the Calendar o f 354, as much as their form and content, argues that Constantinople taught the West the use of the consular annals. It is easy to see how the annals, once devised, were incorporated into a tradition of chronographical reference works that already existed. But that tradition does not by itself explain the creation of the new genre. The annals seem to reflect the special circumstances of the city of Constantinople. It was intended from its foundation to be a New Rome. Constantine and his son Constantius II transplanted many of the traditions of the elder Rome to the shores of the Bosphorus, with a great degree of success. By the 360s Constan­ tinople was truly a second capital. It had its own senate; consuls were installed and consular games staged there. The city was the home of the praetorian prefect of the East. From the time of Theodosius I it was the permanent residence of the emperor as well. The life of the city centered on the imperial palace and administration. The senators and the chief citizens were largely drawn from the military and the official class. Although most of its citizens spoke Greek, Latin was used in official circles and enjoyed a special prestige as the language of law, administration, and political power.112 The Constantinopolitan annals, as we see them preserved in the CH, were well-attuned to the needs and interests of a Latin-speaking 111 Chronographus anni C C C U lIl(CM, l),pp. 50-61; the closest thing to a political history is the Chronica urhis Romae, which records reign-by-reign the gifts of the emperors to the city, as well as other miscellaneous civic events (ibid pp. 141-148). Even this was never continued past the time of Licinius; interestingly, Constantine is not mentioned. 1,2 Gilbert Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale (Paris, 1974), pp. 19-103, 172-174, 3 Π315; “Aux origines de la civilisation byzantine: Langue de culture et langue d ’Ètat,” Revue hìstorique, 241 (1969): 23-46; Peter Brown, The World o f Late Antiquity (London, 1971), pp. 137-138.

THE CONSULAR ANNALS

43

official class. They contained a complete record of imperial ac­ cessions and the revolts of usurpers. Many entries concerned wars with the barbarians, with a strong emphasis on events in the Balkans, the closest frontier to the city. From 350, the annals included a detailed record of public occurrences within the burgeoning new capital. Ecclesiastical coverage was carefully calculated to offend no one who professed the imperial religion. Nothing was said of the intense doctrinal rivalries of the era. Specifically Christian material was largely restricted to the bringing of martyrs’ relics into the city. All of these events were tied to a chronological framework whose symbolic aspect cannot be overemphasized. The consular calendar, although used by the imperial government for centuries, was still primarily the calendar of the city of Rome. Local communities, particularly in the east, commonly used other reckonings.113The use of consular dating in Constantinople was itself a sign of its special connection not only with the imperial government but with the glorious Roman past; this is the reason, no doubt, that the/«i//in the CH begin with the first consuls, Brutus and Collatinus. At the same time, the people of New Rome seem to have had a limited curiosity about the Old. The city on the Tiber was remembered for Cicero and Sallust, Julius Caesar and Augustus, Peter and Paul, and little else. In the account of the fourth century references to Rome or to any place in the western provinces are rare. If we grant that the annals were first compiled by the luxury book trade for the Constantinopolitan aristocracy, their dispersion through­ out the empire is not difficult to explain. Compiled as they were for an informed and influential class close to the palace, they became prestigious and authoritative. The annals quite naturally found their way to Alexandria, still a center of chronography and book production, and it may have been there that they were first translated into Greek. The increased political and cultural contact between the two halves of the empire in the reign of Theodosius I facilitated their introduction into the west. The CH came to Spain, it seems, with the widow of Cynegius, who was a Spaniard prominent at Theodosius’s court.114The appearance of the annals in Italy followed Theodosius’s expeditions to Italy.115 When the court came to Rome, after the For instance, those cited by Cyril Mango, Byzantium: The Empire o f New Rome (London, 1980), pp. 189-190. IM See above, at n. 88. The precise date when the annals came to Italy cannot be determined. The FV are the best indication. Events are frequently noted from the death of Valens and the accession of Theodosius (378-379). In the 380s and 390s the annals record the revolts

44

THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

emperor’s victories over the usurpers Maximus and Eugenius, almanacs no doubt came in the baggage train. The normal courtesies of aristocratic life, which included the exchange of books, ensured that the annals, like any other new material of interest, began to circulate in Italian court circles.*116Eventually original continuations, such as that attested to by the Merseburg fragment, were produced in Italy itself. The annals spread more slowly to the other western provinces. The most favorable milieu for the consular annals was a capital city or an emperor’s court, where wealthy and influential men kept a close eye on current events. Thus, although Hydatius’s copy of the Constantinopolitan annals (or its exemplar) reached Spain early, the annals did not flourish abstracted from a metropolitan environment. Hydatius himself is the only known continuator of the CH. Nor did the annals appear in Gaul until a much later date. The first Gallic annals date from the late 450s, precisely in the short period when the emperors Avitus and Majorian brought the imperial court into Gaul for the first time since the death of Valentinian II in 392. For a few years there was an intensified contact between Gallic and Italian aristocracies. One result of this contact may have been the intro­ duction of a certain style of recordkeeping into Gaul. Certainly the annals were widely used in Gaul thereafter, and survived the imperial regime in that country.117 of Maximus and Eugenius, the victories of Theodosius, the elevation of his sons, all events of equal significance for both halves of the empire. A possible indication is the noted entry of Theodosius and Honorius into Rome in 389. The notices of the defeat of Gildo (398) and the invasion of Italy by Alaric (401) are more clearly of western provenance. There are no Eastern events in the surviving Italian annals (which are admittedly very incomplete in the early fifth century) for many years after the accession of Theodosius II (403) (CM, 1: 296-299). 116 See Symmachus, Ep. 4.18 (MGH: A A, 6: 103-104) for an example of the lending of historical material; Samuel Dill, Roman S ociety in the L ast Century o f the Western Em pire , 2nd ed. (London, 1910), pp. 154-156. 117 The annals of Gaul, being extremely fragmentary, are far more obscure than those of Italy. Holder-Egger believed that Gregory of Tours used the annals of Arles, which included material from the Ravenna annals (Holder-Egger, pp. 268-278). Wilhelm Arndt, in his edition of Gregory ofTours {M GH : Script, rer. M erov. 1, Pt. 1: 22-23) agreed with Holder-Egger on this point (also see Wattenbach-Levison, pp. 106107). Arndt thought that Gregory also used various other Gallic annals, a position supported by Gabriel Monod (Etudes critiques sur les sources de l'histoire mérovingienne (Paris, 1872), pp. 84-86) and Godefroid Kurth (“ Les sources de l’histoire de Clovis dans Grégoire de Tours,” Études Franques (Paris, 1919) 2: 211-224). The nature of these other annals, some of which may have been used by Marius of Avenches as well, is, however, unknown. Mommsen, in contrast to Arndt, rejected Gregory’s use of the Italian annals and, by implication, Holder-Egger’s entire reconstruction of the annals of Arles. Mommsen pointed out that Gregory’s only explicit citation of the consular annals (see above n. 53) is found nowhere in the remnants of the Italian annals. He believed, however, that

45

The dissemination of the annals encouraged a type of non-literary recordkeeping that could be practiced by those with absolutely no pretensions to literary merit and read by anyone with an interest in contemporary events and the high points of the recent past. The abundant survival of Italian material (documented in Mommsen’s edition of the Consularia Italica) attests to the popularity and usefulness of such brief records even outside the exalted circles for which they were originally conceived. The ease with which annals could be continued helped preserve information that might otherwise have been quickly lost. The existence of these bare-bones, impersonal accounts made easier the task of historians with more literary inclinations. The annals provided chroniclers and others with a count of years and, in most cases, an outline of the great political and military events, ready to be embellished and supplemented. Two and perhaps all three of the subjects of this study were among the users of the annals. It is revealing to compare Hydatius’s chronicle with his copy of the annals: although well-informed about events in his own lifetime, Hydatius knew little more about the politics of the late fourth century than the annals told him. Similarly many ofthedetailsinthe early part of Prosper’s continuation of Jerome (i.e. A.D. 378 to 420) seem to have been drawn from an early Italian version of the annals. The anonymous Gallic chronicler had little access to the annalistic tradition, and his work suffered for it. Save for the last section, where the author could rely on his memory, his chronology is very confused and his knowledge of events sketchy.118 The example of the annals also influenced the practice of western chroniclers in the fifth and sixth century. Prosper, the very first continuator of Jerome, was also the first historian to use the annals. He drastically simplified the complex apparatus of Eusebius and Jerome, substituting for the imperial period a chronology based primarily on the consular fasti. This not only made it easier to avail himself of material from the consular annals, but it made his work, with its familiar reckoning of time, more accessible to the average the existence of Gallic annals was demonstrated by correspondences between the Gallic Chronicle of 511 and Marius of Avenches, and others between Marius and Gregory (CM, 1: 628, 664, and 232-234; CM, 2: 230, 234-237). The earliest of these correspondences is at A.D. 460 (CM, 1: 664; 2; 232). The Copenhagen Continuation of Prosper preserves what may be a fragment of the Gallic annals at 455-456 (in the Consularia halica. (CM, 1: 304-305)). Given the state of the evidence, Mommsen’s more cautious approach is to be preferred to Holder-Egger’s. "* For specifics on these matters, see chapters III, IV, and V.

THH HISTORIOGRAPHICAL BAC KGROUND

46

reader. Prosper’s use of a consular chronology was no doubt part of the reason for his popularity among later writers, who found it very easy to continue his account. Indeed, the successors of Prosper were obviously much influenced by the annalistic tradition. Both Cassiodorus and Marius of Avenches habitually used annalistic stock phrases (his conss., hoc anno, eo anno)·, Cassiodorus even did so when summarizing material derived from Jerome and Prosper."9Some of the short anonymous continuations of Prosper are scarcely dis­ tinguishable from the annals.11920 The annalistic tradition and the tradition of Eusebius and Jerome naturally grew closer together as annals and chronicles were bound in the same reference books, and as the longer chronicles were abbreviated or continued or both by anonymous writers.

4.

The Choice of a Model

In the mid-fifth century, this mingling of genres was only beginning. Despite the influence of the annals upon them, our three fifthcentury chroniclers must be seen as working primarily in the tradition of Jerome. Both Prosper and Hydatius wrote signed literary pieces; it is quite possible that the Chronicle o f452 originally bore the name of its author. None of the three was content to write an impersonal record of the times. They were creating somewhat more ambitious works, within the compass of which they could occasion­ ally express an opinion, indicate the meaning of a given event, or relate the significance of a series of events as a whole, all of which were out-of-place in the annals, or in any strictly defined work of chronology.121 Furthermore, Prosper, Hydatius, and the Chronicler of 452 were speaking at least part of the time to an audience with ecclesiastical interests; each of the chroniclers staked out clear doctrinal positions. Here the influence of Jerome is particularly strong. Our chroniclers were in their own eyes ecclesiastical writers, men who chose to associate themselves with a famous church father, and therefore participants in a great tradition of ecclesiastical 119 These chronicles were edited by Mommsen in CM, 2: 109-161, 225-239. 120 See Additamenta I-IV in Mommsen’s edition o f Prosper (CM, 1: 486-493). 121 See the remarks of'Charles William Fornara, The Nature o f History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 28-30 on the distinction between history and chronography.

THE CHOK'I·: ΟΙ Λ MODI·:!.

47

literature. Their own efforts, however modest, were meant as a contribution to the life o f the church. This is a fact o f the highest importance, one that must be kept in mind as we proceed to investigate their individual chronicles.

Ill PROSPER

1. The Author Jerom e’s chronicle very quickly became popular among churchmen in the Latin provinces o f the empire; it is cited, for example, in Augustine’s C i t y o f G o d simply as “ the chronicles.” 1 More than half a century passed, however, before Jerome found his first continu­ ator, Prosper o f Aquitaine (called “ Prosper Tiro” in some manu­ scripts),2 who began to add to Jerome’s account in 433. Although Prosper is not nearly so fam ous as Jerome or Eusebius, or as his own successor Cassiodorus, he is none the less one o f the better known of the early chroniclers. His chief fame rests not on his historical work, but on his activities as a theologian and an aggressive propagandist for the Augustinian doctrine o f grace. As with many ancient men, Prosper’s early life is obscure to us.3 It is certain that he came from Aquitaine; it is likely that he was born around 390. By the time he appears in our records, in the late 420s, he had already left his homeland for Provence. This move may have ' For instance, 18.27 (CSEL 40, Pt. 2: 304); see Croke, “ Origins,” p. 126) Mommsen, CM, I: 343; Louis Valentin, S t. P ro sp e r pp. 121-124. 3 Our information about Prosper’s life and writings and their chronology is drawn from his own works and from the brief notices of Gennadius, Cassiodorus and Photius. Modern discussions, besides those of Mommsen and Valentin (see previous note), include the following: R. Helm, s.v. “ Prosper,” RE23,pt. 1:881-897; G. Bardy, “ Prosper d’Aquitaine (Saint),” D ic tio n n a ire d e th é o lo g ie c a th o liq u e 13, Pt. 1 (1936): 846-850. Two recent articles on Prosper came to my attention only after my own work was completed: R.A. Markus, “Chronicle and Theology,” and Concetta Moli, “ Prospettive universali e prospettive locali nella storiografia latina del V secolo;” see chapter 1, η. 6 for full citations.

1 On ·Prosper’s name, see d ’A q u ita in e (Toulouse, 1900),

THE AUTHOR

49

been a result o f the disorders caused by the Vandal invasions o f 406. Indeed, if Prosper was the author o f the poem P o e m a c o n ju g is a d u x o r e m attributed to him in som e manuscripts, it was the experience o f war and the attendant devastation that turned him to religion; the poet, citing the hardships o f recent times as proof o f the emptiness o f transitory things, urges his wife to take up the Christian life in partnership with him. The identity o f the poet with Prosper is unproven, but not unlikely. Like the poet, Prosper found consolation in the face o f the injustices o f this world in his religion, and he devoted most o f his life to the spiritual endeavor proposed in the poem. Prosper never took holy orders; rather, he seems to have been a conversus, a serious layman following an ascetic discipline, but not as part o f an organized monastery.4 The first certain references to Prosper date from about 427. At this time he began to take part in a controversy on the nature o f free will and grace. This was not a new dispute, but one that had begun more than fifteen years before, when the teachings o f Pelagius on the nature o f sin began to excite interest.5 Pelagius, only recently dead in the 420s, had been a c o n v e r s u s o f British origin. While resident in Rome in the early years o f the fifth century, he had become renowned for his Christian learning and his ascetic zeal. Pelagius challenged the conventionally Christian people o f Rome to take responsibility for their eternal souls. He believed that the soul was free to chose good as easily as evil; what held it back was the corruption o f society and the force o f habit. Baptism could be a dramatic break, in which the believer threw o ff the customs o f the past and began a new and perfect life. Indeed, Pelagius said that Christ demanded from his followers nothing less than perfection. Pelagius’s call to reform attracted to him a number o f dedicated adherents in the Italian aristocracy. His teachings also found a distinguished critic in Augustine, the elderly and prominent bishop o f Hippo in Africa. In his youth, Augustine had shared Pelagius’s optimistic view o f the powers o f the baptized soul. Since then, however, he had become convinced that the sin o f Adam, the original 4 On Prosper’s date of birth: Valentin, p. 124-125; As author of P o em a conjugis a d ibid., pp. 152, 754-766 (for the poem see PL 51: 611-616); Prosper’s lack of clerical status: Holder-Egger, “Untersuchungen über einige annalistische Q u e lle n z u r Geschichte des fünften und sechsten Jahrhunderts, I. Die Chronik Prospers von Aquitanien,” N e u e s A rc h iv , 1 (1876): 55; Valentin, pp. 143-151; contra, Mommsen CM, 1: 344.1 1 ? e following discussion of the controversy on grace and predestination is largely based on Peter Brown, A u g u stin e , pp. 340-407. uxorem :

5«

PROSPER

sin dismissed by Pelagius as inconsequential, had permanently left its mark on all humanity. Free will had become corrupted, so that a person could scarcely hope to choose good without God’s help. Only divine grace made a good life and ultimate salvation possible; and God gave that grace gratuitously, as he willed, because humanity as a result of the Fall deserved nothing but damnation. Indeed, Augustine even argued that God had chosen the saved before all time. All others were predestined for damnation. Augustine became aware of Pelagius’s doctrines on free will about 411, and immediately began to attack them as dangerous errors contrary to the established faith of the Catholic church. For six years the battle raged, until Augustine, with the backing of the African church and influential allies at the western court, succeeded in having Pelagius branded as a heretic and driven from Rome by imperial decree. The reluctant acquiescence of Pope Zosimus in this pro­ ceeding soon followed. At first it looked as if Augustine’s victory had been total. But there were many who found his teachings at least as suspect as those of the defeated heretic. The doctrines of grace and predestination were particularly unwelcome in the monasteries. The goal of the monk had always been to live a perfect or “angelic” life while still in the body. Augustine seemed to say that their efforts were of no avail, that only grace could save them, grace that was granted without regard to an individual’s deserts, but in accordance with an inscrutable predestination. During the 420s, protests began to be heard in monastic communities in Gaul and even at the African center of Hadrumetum. The protests were loud in Marseille, where Prosper was living in the late 420s, and they found no one in authority to refute them. Two supporters of Augustine, Prosper and a friend named Hilary, became alarmed and wrote to the master himself for aid in answering the critics. Augustine obliged them by sending his disciples two new works, De praedestinatione sanctorum and De dono perseverantiae. Rather than silencing Augustine’s opponents, these treatises at­ tracted more criticism and soon were in need of defense themselves. Prosper took up the challenge, and wrote a long polemical poem, the punningly entitled De ingratis, which attacked the “enemies of grace” and zealously upheld both Augustine’s reputation and his teaching on salvation.6 6 G. Bardy, “ Prosper d'Aquilaine (Saint)," cols. 846-847.

TUI·: AUTHOR

51

In 430 Augustine died, leaving Prosper without a patron or powerful allies. The measure of his determination to combat error can be seen in the dramatic action he took next. In 431 he travelled with Hilary to Rome and appealed to Pope Celestine against his adversaries. Celestine was polite but less than whole-hearted in his support. He restricted himself to calling on the bishops of Gaul to restrain overzealous preachers, in the hope of calming the controver­ sy. He also expressed a general commendation for Augustine as a learned man of holy life. Prosper believed that this letter was an authoritative declaration supporting his own position; in fact, Celestine’s statement was very cautious, and avoided committing the church of Rome to any specific doctrine.7 Whatever effect the papal letter may have had was dissipated after the death of Celestine in 432. Augustine’s ideas were criticized by such luminaries of South Gallic monasticism as John Cassian and Vincent of Lérins, as well as by anonymous pamphleteers. Prosper responded boldly, even intemperately. In his Contra Collatorem, for example, he told the respected Cassian that his teaching favored the Pelagian heretics, and that attacks on Augustine were attacks on the strongest defender of church authority. Prosper’s treatment of Cassian has been characterized as less than fair, and prompted antiAugustinian invective that matched Prosper’s own violence of tone.8 Yet at the same time as Prosper was lambasting Augustine’s critics, he began to shift his own position slightly. While remaining a fervent supporter of the doctrine of grace, Prosper became reluctant to discuss predestination, either because he had begun to rethink the harsher aspects of that doctrine, as many modern theologians have suggested, or simply because he felt that the Gallic antipathy to Augustine’s formulation was insuperable.9 During the contentious period immediately following Augustine’s death Prosper was at his most prolific. It was then that he wrote the first edition of his chronicle, which reflects his theological pre­ occupations and preserves his own version of the controversy about grace. The Gallic controversy (somewhat inaccurately called the “Semi7 Celestine, Ep. 21 (PL, 50: 528-530); For Prosper's interpretation, see his De gratia Dei el libero arbitrio conira collatorem 21.3 (PL 51: 272-273), trans, by P. De Letter in Prosper, The Defense o f St. Augustine, Ancient Christian Writers no. 32 (Westminster, Md., 1963), pp. 134-135. * De Letter in Prosper, Defense o f St. Augustine, p. 10. * Valentin, pp. 296-319, 377-403; but see Rudolf Lorenz, “ Der Augustinismus Prospers von Aquitanien,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 73 (1962): 233-252.

52

PROSPER

pelagian controversy” in most modern literature)10 appears to have died down after the death of Cassian in about 435. Another factor was, no doubt, the departure of Prosper for Rome, where he seems to have lived out the rest of his life. The chronology of this move is uncertain. Later traditions portray Prosper as a figure of conse­ quence at the court of Pope Leo the Great (440-461), and identify him as one of Leo’s notaries. At the end of the fifth century Gennadius said of Prosper that “epistles of Pope Leo against [the Constantinopolitan heretic] Eutyches on the true incarnation of Christ...are also thought to have been dictated by him.”11 If this is true, Prosper must have been very important indeed, thus to take a leading part in the great theological dispute of Leo’s reign. But Gennadius was not a contemporary of Prosper, and wrote about a generation after the latter’s death; we lack contemporary evidence on Prosper’s exact position, if any, at the papal court, and about his activities in Rome.12 We are somewhat better informed about Prosper’s literary activities in his Roman years. Besides further editions of his chronicle he produced a number of theological treatises. Perhaps the earliest was his parting shot at the Gallic critics of Augustine, the C a p itu la s e u p r a e te r i to r u m

S e d is A p o s to lic a e e p is c o p o r u m

a u c to r ita te s d e

g r a t i a D e i . ' 1 The C a p itu la

were a list of ten doctrinal points asserting the efficacy of and the necessity for God’s grace, each supported by quotations from recent papal statements. This was a strong defense of an essential Augustinian doctrine, but the most moderate one yet. Augustine’s name was mentioned nowhere in the document. Also Prosper said nothing about the most contentious issue, predesti­ nation, but rather laid it aside. Prosper was no longer insisting that Augustine’s pronouncements on grace and predestination be accepted as a whole; on the other hand he did not actually reject any of 10 On the misuse of the term Semi-Pelagian, see Jean Daniélou and Henri Marrou, trans, by Victor Cronin, The Christian Centuries, v. 1 (New York, 1964), pp. 406-407. 11 Gennadius, D e viris in lu str ib u s 85. ed. Ernest Cushing Richardson (Leipzig, 1896) p. 90. Photius similarly speaks of Prosper undertaking a literary assignment at the request of Leo in B ib lio th e c a 54, ed. Henry (Paris, 1959-74), 1:44. Recent authorities who identify Prosper as Leo’s notary include Erich Caspar, G e s c h ic h te d e s P a p s ttu m s von d en A n fä n g e n b is z u r H ö h e d e r W e lth e rr sc h a ft (Tübingen, 1930-1933), 1:460,492 n. I; and Francis X. Murphy, “Leo I,” N e w C a th o lic E n c y c lo p e d ia (New York, 1967), 8: 639. 12 Gennadius misinterpreted Victorius of Aquitaine as saying that Prosper wrote an Easter canon. Bede, probably following Gennadius, assumed that Prosper had written letters on the Eutychian controversy. See CM, 1:344 and n. 3. Against Prosper’s status as a notary, see Helm, s.v. “Prosper,” cols. 881-882; Valentin, p. 138. 13 PL 51: 205-212; trans, by De Letter in Prosper, D e fe n s e o f S t. A u g u s tin e , pp. 178185. T he F irst S ix H u n d r e d Y e a rs ,

Tin:

AUTHOR

5.1

Augustine’s thought. At this point — after 435 but before 442 Prosper was content to try to establish a pronouncement based on papal authority establishing the essential doctrine of grace.14 The Capitula were Prosper’s last polemic on the subject of grace; his further efforts to disseminate Augustine’s teachings were more positive in tone. Prosper spent much of his later years summarizing Augustine’s works to make them accessible to a wide audience. Perhaps the first of these was the Expositio psalmorum, an epitome of Augustine’s Enarrationes, an exegetical treatment of the Psalms. Sometime after 450 Prosper produced a book of Sententiae, a collection of 92 maxims drawn from the writings of Augustine, and a book of 106 epigrams, a similar florilegium in verse. Both the Sententiae and the Epigrammata were intended as handbooks for the serious Christian, and treated a variety of subjects from an Augustinian point of view. As one might expect, much of these two collections is devoted to discussion of the doctrines of grace and the incarnation, but as a whole they are more concerned with morality than doctrine. The maxims of the florilegia have a definite monastic flavor, urging the reader to patience in adversity, the exercise of virtue, and constant striving to perfection. These works proved very successful as popularizations of Augustinian theology. The Sen­ tentiae, in fact, were to play an important role in later controversies on grace. They were used in the early sixth century by Caesarius of Arles and other Gallic bishops at the council of Orange of 509 in their final refutation of anti-Augustinian elements in that country.15 A final treatise, the De vocatione omnium gentium, was written about 450. It was an attempt to reconcile Augustine’s teaching on grace with the scripturally attested desire of God to save all men. His argument was that although all human beings do not receive the grace that saves, they do receive God’s general grace, the good things of creation. Prosper did not explain why some receive saving grace and others do not, since he believed that the reasons for God’s judgements in this matter were known only to the Deity. Although it is possible to see the De vocatione as a subtle defense of Augustinian predestination, most recent scholars see the treatise as an act of 14 M. Cappuyns, “ L’Origine des capitula pseudo-célestiniens contre le semipélagianisme,” Revue bénédictine, 41 (1929): 156-170. The attribution to Prosper that Cappuyns argues for has been widely accepted. 15 The Expositio psalmorum a centesimo usque ad centesimum quinquegesimum, the Sententiae ex operibus S. Augustini, and the Epigrammata ex sententiis S. Augustini are edited in PL 51: 277-532. On the characteristics and significance of these works, especially the latter two, see Valentin, pp. 339-367; Lorenz, pp. 218-232.

54

PROSPER

partial emancipation from Augustine’s view that all human beings were individually predestined to salvation or damnation, and the work itself as preparing the way for medieval developments in the doctrine of salvation. Strict Augustinianism or a step away from it, De vocatione was, as a treatment of a problem not exhausted by his master, Prosper’s most original contribution to theology.16 The last edition of Prosper’s chronicle includes a description of the Vandal sack of Rome in 455, assuring us that the now-elderly theologian survived at least to that year. We cannot be more precise about the date of his death. Victorius of Aquitaine, who in 457 based an Easter cycle partly on the consular list provided by Prosper’s chronicle, mentioned Prosper as “a holy and venerable man,” but did not tell the reader clearly that the object of his praise was still alive. Count Marcellinus inserted at A.D. 463 in his sixth-century chronicle a notice drawn from Gennadius concerning Prosper’s career, which mentions specifically Prosper’s involvement in the Eutychian controversy. He did not specify, however, that this was the date of Prosper’s death. Marcellinus had no other entry for that year; his brief discussion of a theologian of middling fame may have been used simply to fill a hole in his account.17 Prosper is best known as the most zealous defender of Augustine against his contemporary critics. He can be seen, more positively, as a man of no little literary skill who devoted his talents to promul­ gating the most important truths of theology in an accessible form. For a man of Prosper’s convictions, this chiefly meant recasting the thought of Augustine, the greatest of theologians, into brief, clear summaries. In this context, Prosper’s chronicle can be seen as one didactic work among many. Like his theological tracts, it was a compendium of knowledge necessary for the fifth-century Christian. Nor did it lack an Augustinian element. Although modern students of Prosper have usually neglected the chronicle in favor of his theological writings, both he and his contemporary readers valued it. Prosper returned to it several times in the course of his literary career; it was among his first works as well as one of the last finished. The 16 PL 51: 647-722; Prosper, The C all o f All N ations , trans. P. De Letter, Ancient Christian Writers, v. 14 (Westminster, Md., 1963). Most recent scholars follow Cappuyns (in “ Le premier représentant de l’augustinisme medieval. Prosper d’Aquitaine,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et m edievale, 1 (1929): 309-337) in accounting the treatise a modification of Augustine’s strict doctrines. Loren/, has argued against this view. 17 For Victorius’s words, see CM, 1: 345; Marccllinus Comes, Chronicon s.a. 463 (CM, 2: 88).

[ HI STRUCTURI·: OF ΓΗΙ CHRONICI.!·

55

chronicle was immediately popular, finding readers during his lifetime not only in Rome but also in Africa.

2. The Structure of the Chronicle The modern student of the early Christian chronicles is faced with one great problem. Before any text can be interpreted, one must identify with a fair degree of certainty what the author actually wrote. This problem is not unique to those who read old chronicles, of course; any historian of ancient or medieval literature has experienced the like. But in the case of the chronicle form, the difficulties are pronounced. The same looseness of structure that made chronicles so easy to compose made them extremely vulnerable to alteration by later hands. The plain style of most chronicles means that alterations are often hard to detect. Fortunately we are not without guides in this matter. In particular, the labors of Theodor Mommsen in the latter half of the nineteenth century, culminating in his authoritative Chronica Minora editions, settled many of the problems posed by the manuscript evidence and went a long way towards establishing the genuine texts of the chroniclers. In the case of Prosper, Mommsen’s guidance isespecially welcome. There are over eighty manuscripts of the chronicle, preserving the text in a variety of lengths and formats. Thanks, however, to the amount of this material, we have a context by which to judge what is authentic Prosper and what is not. As a result, we can in almost every case distinguish between entries written by Prosper and later interpolations. We can also be reasonably certain that genuine material has not been lost in transmission. The chronicle of Prosper is preserved in a number of different forms. In the great majority of manuscripts, it begins in 378, and is attached to Jerome’s chronicle as a continuation, albeit one using a different chronological framework. This was not the original format of Prosper’s work, however. A dozen manuscripts preserve a longer version in which Prosper’s continuation follows not Jerome but an epitome of Jerome by Prosper himself, a simplified, reorganized, and abbreviated edition of the earlier chronicle here and there supple­ mented from other sources. The short version, which is only a fifth as long as Prosper’s complete chronicle, is the creation oflater editors who preferred the full chronicle of Jerome to Prosper’s conden­ sation, but who also wished to possess Prosper’s unique account of

56

PROSPER

the first half of the fifth century. Linking together chronicles in this fashion so that the best parts of each were preserved and duplication eliminated was a common procedure in the Middle Ages.18 The end-point of the chronicle also varies from manuscript to manuscript. We have versions ending in 440,443,445, and 455. Some of these versions have been accidentally shortened in transmission; nevertheless it is certain that Prosper wrote his chronicle in a number of editions over the course of his later life. In this he was somewhat unusual. Most of the chroniclers of the fifth and sixth centuries appear to have written their histories at one time and never to have revised or continued them. There were exceptions, such as Count Marcellinus, who first issued his eastern chronicle in 518 and then continued it to 534. Likewise Prosper: between 433 and 455, he produced at least four versions of his chronicle.19 We are best informed about the editions of 445 and 455. Three well-informed authorities, Gennadius, Victorius and Cassiodorus, tell us that Prosper’s chronicle was never extended past 455, and several manuscripts still preserve this final edition. There are also many extant copies of the 445 edition, which began to circulate soon after its composition and was continued by other hands during the late 440s and early 450s.20 Other editions have left subtler traces in the manuscript tradition. We have no complete copies of the 451 edition; the incipit, indicating that Prosper issued it in that year, is found only in one Parisian manuscript, which breaks off at A.D. 94 and thus does not allow us to see precisely how the 451 edition differed from that of 445. Fortunately we do have a strong indication of what new material was added to the earlier version. In Prosper’s final edition of 455, the account from 446 to 450 is exclusively devoted to the rise and fall of the Eutychian heresy in Constantinople. It seems likely that Prosper, a papal partisan and a long-time opponent of heresy, produced an edition of the chronicle in early 451, one that ended with the 18 The seventh-century ms. that Mommsen called O allows us to see the editing process at work. The scribe, wishing to copy only the unique part of Prosper’s chronicle, began accidentally to transcribe Prosper’s epitome of Jerome at the point where Jerome’s authority succeeded Eusebius’s (c. 1022, A.D. 327). The scribe realized his error soon after, and then skipped to c. 1179 o f the epitome (A.D. 383), inadvertently omitting the first four years of Prosper’s continuation. See CM, 1: 362! ” Mommsen believed that there was an edition in 443 (CM, I: 345; 2: 180). I have argued against this conclusion in ‘'Prosper’s Epitoma Chronicon: Was there an edition of 443?,” Classical Philology, 81 (1986); 240-244. 20 Mommsen edited these continuations in Appendices I and II of his edition of Prosper (CM, I: 486-490).

THE STRUCTURE OE THE CHRONICLE

57

accession in July 450 of the eastern emperor Marcian and his decisive intervention in favor of the theological position of Pope Leo.21 A much earlier, and presumably first, edition of Prosper’s chronicle, written in 433, can be detected only by a close examination of the later editions. The chief indication is the summation of the years since Creation that appears at 433 in some manuscripts; Jerome ended his chronicle in the same manner.22 Other evidence supports the same conclusion. The notice at 432 praising the peaceful accession of Pope Sixtus seems to speak of that Pope (d. 440) as still alive, and of the event as a recent one.23Moreover, there are no events reported under 433 or 434, only the consuls of the year. Such blank years are very unusual in Prosper’s account of the fifth century. The last previous one is 404, from a period when Prosper was not working from personal recollection. The next such years are 445,446, and 447, the last year of Prosper’s edition of 445 and the first two years of the next edition. In the latter case the manuscripts demonstrate that Prosper ended his edition of 445 by recording the consuls, but no events, of the final year, and that when he began to write again, he neglected to record any events for the first two years of the new edition. The existence of a similar break at 433 strongly suggests that Prosper temporarily ceased to write in that year, and when he resumed his chronicle later, he skipped over 433 and 434 to write about more recent and pressing events. As we shall see later, thematic considerations also speak for the existence of an edition of 433. Thus Prosper composed four different editions of his short history. The chronicle as we have it today is an account written in segments over the course of twenty-three years. As such, it would appear to offer us a valuable opportunity to see one man’s view of history change and develop over two very eventful decades. If we wish to compare different editions of the chronicle, however, we must be reasonably sure that the manuscript evidence allows us to establish what those editions contained. We need to know if Prosper rewrote earlier versions of his chronicle when he reissued the work, and if so, we need to be able to identify such revisions. Otherwise we will be in danger of attributing to an earlier Prosper knowledge and opinions that actually belong to the chronicler of later days. 21 CM, 1: 345, and below, § 7. 22 This summation is shown to be authentic by its very errors. It reports Prosper's mistaken count of years since the Passion (see § 3 below) and not the actual number of years to be found in the chronicle. 21 CM, I: 345.

58

PROSPER

The manuscript tradition limits our ability to compare different editions of the chronicle. No manuscripts of the version of 433 survive, and, as noted above, there are no complete ones that represent the edition of 451. Thus there is simply no way to detect changes made in the 433 edition during the writing of the 445 edition, nor any made in the 451 edition in 455. At best we can compare only the editions of 445 and 455. Even comparison of the two well-attested editions is not easy. Mommsen identified three classes of manuscripts: one, a recension best represented by mss. M and Y; another recension best represented by mss. A, O, and R; and a third class contaminated by both of the foregoing. Manuscripts M and Y, the only unmutilated manuscripts in the first recension, are copies of the complete chronicle to 455.24 All but one of the manuscripts in the AOR recension end in 445 or (if mutilated) before; the single exception is ms. V, a sixth-century epitome of the complete chronicle to 455. Mommsen concluded that the recensions did not represent different editions; he believed that the minor textual variations that distinguish the recensions were essentially insignificant, and of the sort easily introduced by later writers. If Mommsen was correct, then any changes made by Prosper himself in the course of issuing new editions must remain indetectable, or nearly so.25 Mommsen’s argument is based on the use made of Prosper by his later excerptors Cassiodorus and Paul the Deacon. They seem to have used versions of the chronicle that extended to 455, but which were related to a number of the contaminated mss., those Mommsen called FPXZ, which certainly represent the edition of 445.26 This is a rather weak basis for such a sweeping conclusion, particularly when comparison of the two main recensions shows differences best accounted for by the revision of the work by Prosper himself. One such case is at chapter 1278 (A.D. 422), which tells how the general Boniface was excluded by Castinus from an expedition to Spain against the Vandals. The event was of more than passing interest for Prosper; at a crucial time the Roman government lost the services of Boniface, one of the few warriors Prosper considered competent. The Vandals defeated Castinus, and remained free in 24 CM, 1: 376. The individual mss. are described ibid., 1: 353-373. 25 The presence of ms. V in the AOR recension might seem to be a point in favor of Mommsen’s argument, as the epitome that the ms. preserves certainly was based on the edition of 455. But the epitome is so brief that it can shed little if any light on the question of whether Prosper revised his own earlier editions. “ CM, 1: 376.

THE STRUCTURE OF THI·: CHRONICLE

59

Spain while rivalries grew up between Roman generals. The ultimate result was, according to Prosper, the crossing of the Vandals to Africa. In the manuscripts of the 445 edition, the entry ends with idque rei publicae multorum laborum initium fuit, “This was the beginning of many troubles for the state.” The two chief manuscripts that preserve the 455 edition add, after laborum, et malorum sequentium, “and subsequent evils.” These three words might simply have been omitted in the transmission of the earlier edition, but it seems more likely that Prosper felt inspired to add these words after the Vandal sack of Rome in 455: a carefully constructed phrase signified his deeper regret at the loss of this crucial opportunity. Another significant alteration of an earlier entry took place at chapter 1289 (A.D. 425). Mommsen’s edition shows two reports of Valentinian Ill’s elevation to the rank of Augustus. One, found in the MY recension and in some contaminated mss., states that “Valen­ tinian was named Augustus by the army.” The other, found only in the AOR recension, says “Valentinian was named Augustus by decree of Theodosius.” Mommsen took the first to be the earlier notice, written by Prosper himself, because he believed it was meant as a compliment to Valentinian. The second notice, Mommsen thought, came from the hand of a later writer who “did not find it expedient to speak well of the dead,” and who was thus free to depict the true state of affairs, i.e., Valentinian’s dependence on Theodosius II. Mommsen’s assumption was that showing an emperor to have been chosen by a senior colleague was necessarily a slight. But as we shall see, this need not be so; indeed the opposite would more likely have been true for Prosper, who at least in his early years was a strong believer in dynastic continuity. Certainly no denigration was in­ tended when Prosper portrayed Theodosius I as being appointed by Gratian.27 Another explanation of the problem better fits the manuscript evidence. Before 445 Prosper wrote that Valentinian had been named by his cousin, but at some date after that he preferred to represent the western emperor’s accession as an election by the army, without mentioning that the troops were merely rubberstamping the eastern emperor’s choice. We need not reach very far to find why and when he did this. In 451 Marcian, a man favored by Prosper for various reasons but who was not a Theodosian, took the eastern throne1* 11 Mommsen’s comments are at CM, I: 380. For Prosper’s attitude toward dynasticism, see below, § 5. Theodosius’s accession, Prosp. 1170.

PROSPER

60

without consulting Ravenna. Prosper glossed over this flaw in Marcian’s imperial title (he was not recognized in the west for some years) and showed him as being elected “by the consent of the whole army.” Prosper altered his presentation of Valentinian’s accession after 445, probably in his edition of 451, to present Marcian’s rule as resting on the same basis as that of his western colleague.28 It may be too bold to assert, in opposition to Mommsen, that the two main manuscript recensions definitely represent the two most popular editions of the chronicle, those of 445 and 455. But some of the differences between the recensions are convincingly explained on this hypothesis. If we assume, however, that the hypothesis is true, one is still struck, as Mommsen was, by how few and how small the differences between the two editions seem to have been. Most alterations were a matter of a few words here and there. Only two substantial entries present in the AOR recension are absent from the MY recension; they may be early interpolations, rather than entries that Prosper eliminated from a later edition.29 It appears then, that even if we can find evidence that Prosper did alter earlier editions when he later reissued them, his revisions were few. As in the case of Marcellinus’s chronicle, which was published in two editions, the material and even the phraseology of earlier editions of Prosper’s work seem to have passed almost unaltered into later versions of the chronicle. Although caution is needed we can usually be fairly certain when Prosper wrote a given entry, a fact that will be useful in our investigation of his continuation.

3. Prosper’s Epitome of Jerome Prosper’s chronicle logically divides into two parts, the epitome of Jerome and Prosper’s original continuation. The former has often been dismissed as insignificant. The bulk of the material in the epitome is simply taken from the account of ancient history provided by Eusebius and Jerome. Prosper, as we shall see, contributed some original material, but the amount of his own research into the distant past was negligible. There is nothing in the epitome that cannot be found in other extant sources. Even in the Middle Ages, many editors and readers found the epitome superfluous, and preferred to take 28 See below, § 7. 29 Prosp. 1285, 1337. See Mommsen’s remarks at CM, 1: 379-380.

PROSPFR’S ΓΡΓΓΟΜ1 OF JF.ROMF

61

their ancient history directly from Jerome. But for us at least it would be a mistake to ignore the epitome. If we are to understand Prosper as an historian we must examine his work as a whole. The epitome constitutes four-fifths of the chronicle in wordage, and the writing of it was no light task for Prosper. To write at such length he must have felt that ancient history was an important part of his chronicle. Furthermore, the very fact that Prosper condensed Jerome’s account is revealing. Presumably Prosper took from Jerome only the more essential matter, what he thought was important for his readers to know; and if he added information not found in his chief source, we can be sure that he valued it. A reading of the epitome tells us something of Prosper’s own view of the past and his conception of his task as an historian. Let us begin with Prosper’s own description of his chronicle. His incipit, preserved in several important manuscripts, designates the work as epitoma de [libris] chronicon, “an abridgement of the chronicle,” and specifies some of his own contributions: Prosper added to the epitome the generations from Adam to Abraham (omitted by both Eusebius and Jerome), all the consuls from the time of the Passion, and a continuation to the present.30The incipit rather understates the originality of Prosper’s enterprise, which involved among other things changing the later parts of the work from a regnal to a consular chronology, no simple matter. Prosper’s hand can be seen most clearly, in fact, in the epitome’s presentation of chronological information. He did not share the scientific reluctance of Eusebius to discuss pre-Abrahamic times. For Prosper, who may have known very little about the Greek chronographic tradition, history started not at the point where human recordkeeping became reliable, but with Cre­ ation, sufficiently well described in Holy Scripture. He had no hesitation, therefore, about commencing his chronicle with a brief sketch of sacred history from Adam to Abraham. As the incipit says, this is essentially a listing of generations, showing the reader how many years elapsed between the birth of each patriarch and that of his son. Inserted in this list are two longer entries. Chapter twelve, placed at the time of the Flood, explains the exclusion of Cain’s posterity as not worthy to be reckoned with the generations of the people of God. The same entry tells the reader why God sent the Flood: the society of good men, having been corrupted by inter30 CM, 1: 346-347.

62

PROSPER

marriage, deserved to be wiped out. Chapter twenty, originally a marginal notation, briefly mentions the division of peoples and tongues that interrupted the construction of the Tower of Babel. Prosper did not identify his source for this first section of the chronicle, but his list of patriarchs bears a close resemblance to that of the Liber Generationis: both count 2242 years from Adam to the Flood and 1070 years from the Flood to the birth of Abraham.31 There is no division between Prosper’s discussion of the early patriarchs and the second section of the chronicle, which extends from the time of Abraham to the Passion. Here the material is derived entirely from Jerome. Prosper’s compilation, however, differs in some important respects from its source. He abandoned the chronological framework invented by Eusebius, thsfila regnorum. In the previous chapter we showed how the fila, parallel columns of numerals representing the regnal years of the kings of the ancient nations, gave a running synchronism of the chronology of those nations. At the same time, the fila distinguished each individual year from Abraham to the present, and provided a framework for dating historical events. Prosper drastically simplified this format. Up to the Passion, he dated events by reference to a single list of rulers. This began with the biblical patriarchs and continued with the Hebrew judges and kings and the Jewish kings to the Captivity; then after the Captivity events were dated with reference to the Persian kings, the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, and, finally, the Roman emperors. Prosper’s simplification did not stop there. He did not distinguish individual years as Eusebius and Jerome had, but only reported the length of each reign. The events of a given reign were simply listed — some in the body of the text, some in the margin — after the king’s accession notice. Prosper dated a few to a specific year of a given king’s reign, but most, including events precisely dated by Jerome, were not so dated. Let us look at Prosper’s account of the reign of King Asa of Judaea as an example of his narrative technique (c. 120-123): Asa the just, forty-one years. Achia, Sameas, leu, Ioed, Azarias (who is called Addo) and Anani were prophesying. In the twelfth year of his reign, Capys Silvius, the eighth king of the Latins, ruled for twenty-eight years; then the ninth, Carpentus Silvius, reigned for thirteen. In the course of such simplification, the epitome lost much of the " The Liber Generationis was edited by Mommsen in CM, 1: 78-138.

PROSPERA EPITOMI· ΟΙ·' JEROME

63

chronological clarity and precision of its source in favor of brevity and, no doubt, ease of copying. But Prosper did his best to follow the chronology he found in Jerome. In a few cases his figures for the length of a reign differ from those in his source; in all but one this is clearly the result of an error in transcription.32 In four places he summed up the years elapsed between two events; all but one of these computations are consistent with Jerome’s chronology.33Indeed we have an indication that Prosper depended uncritically on the chronography of his predecessor. At the year XV of the emperor Tiberius, where Prosper copied Jerome’s summation of the years from the Creation, he used Jerome’s count of 942 years between the Flood and the birth of Abraham, rather than the figure of 1070 years that he himself used in the first section of the epitome.34 Either Prosper did not detect the inconsistency, or deliberately ignored it rather than tamper with Jerome’s ready-made calculation. ★ Prosper’s division of his epitome into main text and marginal notes preserves to some degree Eusebius’s division of events into pagan and biblical categories, but not strictly. Most, though hardly all, important biblical events are in the main text, while the majority of pagan notices are placed in the margin. Nevertheless, this second section of the epitome reveals little interest in the apologetic purpose that was so important to Eusebius. Only once did Prosper explicitly compare the antiquity of biblical and pagan figures, at chapter thirtyseven, which states that “ the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are older than Serapis.” The entire selection of events shows that Prosper was far less concerned than his source with the history of the Greeks and other eastern peoples. Before the Trojan war, he recorded only the most famous legends, the foundations of famous cities, and a few important kings and inventors; after Troy’s fall he mentioned little more than the most prominent literary figures and philosophers. Much political, chronographic, and cultural infor­ mation transmitted by Eusebius and faithfully copied by Jerome was eliminated. By contrast, both biblical and Roman history received much greater respect; in both categories nearly every important entry found in Jerome is reproduced by Prosper. The result is that Prosper’s account emphasized material of more direct relevance to12 12 The exception: Prosp. 206. ” The exception: Prosp. 106. ,4 Compare Prosp. 14-25, 384.

64

PROSPER

the Latin-speaking Christians of his audience, but afforded little space to eastern material of purely antiquarian interest. With the Passion, Prosper made a major change in his format. Thereafter, he distinguished each individual year by the names of its consuls; he also numbered these years in decades. Although Prosper did not cease to list the Roman emperors or to record the length of their reigns, imperial chronology was henceforth secondary to the consular list. Prosper’s numbering of the years from the Passion amounted to a rudimentary “ Passion era” to distinguish the years of the Christian era from all preceding time. This was an innovation, since his predecessors had numbered the decades from Abraham, whose birth marked for them the beginning of reliable chronology. Prosper’s choice of a place to start his consular list is also of some interest. Eusebius and, following him, Jerome attached more significance to the beginning of Christ’s public ministry; in later parts of their chronicles, Eusebius and Jerome counted the years since Christ from that year. Some chiliastic chroniclers, including Hippolytus, con­ sidered the Incarnation to be the epochal event of Christ’s life. Prosper may have known of this tradition from the Liber Generati­ onis, but he was uninfluenced by it.35 His choice of the Passion as a primary chronological signpost reflects his own theological interests. Prosper, the defender of grace, felt it was appropriate to com­ memorate not Christ’s birth or teaching, but the consummation of His work of salvation. Prosper left his Passion era undeveloped; he did not use it to date events. More important was his use of consular chronology. Thefasti Prosper used were closely related to those found in the FV and the Barbaras Scaligeri. Prosper’s source for the consular list was apparently a set of annals similar in some respects to the existing FV, because he included in the epitome two entries also found in the FV, those describing the martyrdoms of Perpetua and Felicitas in A.D. 204 and the martyrdom of Timothy in 304.36 The adoption of the dating used in the annals was in many ways a very practical move. 35 A Gallic chiliastic chronicler of the fourth century, Q. Julius Hilario, considered the Passion a key date because he believed that Christ would return again 470 years after the Passion; see Gelzer, 2, Pt. 1: 128. Sulpicius ScVerus, writing about the same time as Hilario, also followed the chiliastic tradition by placing the Incarnation at the year 5500 after Creation. This figure is, however, not explicit; see Gelzer, 2, Pt. 1: 119. Severus gave the number of years between the Passion and the endpoint of his chronicle; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.27 (CSEL 1: 82). There is no evidence that Prosper used either of these works, and his chronology was independent of them. u Prosp. 757, 974; cf. the FV 307, 417 (CM, 1: 287, 291).

PROSPI-R'S Ι.ΡΙΊΟΜΙ Ol· JI KOM1

65

Consular reckoning was commonly used in Rome and the Latin­ speaking provinces for dating current events, and was more familiar to the average reader than the scholarly chronology created by Eusebius. We shall see in our discussion of Prosper’s continuation that consular dating made easier his task of recording recent history; consular dating was also adopted by his continuators for this very reason. But changing from regnal to consular dating in the middle of the epitome presented several difficulties to Prosper, none of which he brought to a proper resolution. The first problem was to fix the date of the Passion, which he intended to be the beginning of his consular list. Jerome’s chronicle dated the beginning of Christ’s public ministry to year XV of Tiberius, and supplied a summation of all the years from creation to XV Tiberius. Thus Jerome dated the Passion to XVIII Tiberius. Prosper included in his epitome Jerome’s summation and his dates for Christ’s ministry and Passion. Then, because his consular list dated the Passion to XV Tiberius (as do the FV), he adopted this earlier date for the beginning of the consular list. He explained this procedure in c. 388 of the epitome: Some report that Christ suffered in the eighteenth year of Tiberius... But since the more customary tradition places Our Lord’s crucifixion in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, the consulate o f the two Gemini, we, without prejudice to the other opinion, will begin our list of the subsequent consuls from the aforesaid consulate, while continuing to note the duration of each emperor’s reign.

Yet Prosper did not consistently adhere to this stated reckoning. He copied into his account a summation of years that Jerome placed at the Fall of Jerusalem, which included the statement that “the entire time from the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar andfrom the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel [my emphasis] to the second year of Vespasian and the final destruction of Jerusalem is enume­ rated as forty-two years.”37 This statement, placed where it is, is completely irreconcilable with Prosper’s consular chronology: on the one hand, it states that year II of Vespasian is the forty-second year after XV Tiberius; on the other. Prosper placed this statement under the forty-fourth consulate of a list that begins with the same year, XV Tiberius. A closer examination reveals further inconsistencies in the chrono­ logy of the consular section of the epitome. In Jerome’s chronicle, ” Prosp. 479.

66

PROSPER

there are 351 regnal years recorded after XV Tiberius (reckoning year I = XVI Tiberius); this is shown both by the text of the chronicle and by its final summation. For these 351 regnal years Prosper substituted a list of consuls, which he numbered in decades. According to his own decadal numeration, Prosper’s consular list also contains 351 years. In fact, however, his list contains 352 years — there are eleven years, rather than ten, between the 310th consulate (A.D. 337) and the 320th. This error cannot be attributed to later copyists. The numbering of decades is consistent with Prosper’s own summation of years at A.D. 433, and none of the eleven consulates of this thirtysecond decade can be rejected as an interpolation. Although an extra consulate is included in the thirty-second decade (A.D. 346 is recorded in two different forms), its presence is required to give the reign of Constantius II the twenty-four years Prosper assigned to it. Finally, the introduction of this extra consulate can be shown to be an error of Prosper’s source, as it is also present in the related list of the FV.3S It is evident that Prosper thought that he had reconciled his consular list with Jerome’s tally of regnal years when he had effected only an apparent reconciliation. It is ironic that the true count of 352 consular years is indeed more appropriate to Prosper’s list than his mistaken count. We have noted above that Jerome counted his 351 years beginning with XVI Tiberius. Prosper apparently did not understand Jerome’s exclusive method of reckoning, because Pros­ per’s list of 351 consular years begins, as he clearly stated, with the consuls of the previous year, XV Tiberius. In other words, Jerome counted the years after XV Tiberius, while Prosper counted the years after XVI Tiberius; yet Prosper believed that he had both counted the same years and accounted for the same total number of years as Jerome. There are further concealed differences between the chronologies of Jerome and Prosper after Tiberius XV. Jerome began each emperor’s reign with a notice giving his order in the imperial succession and the length of his reign, e.g.: “Nero, sixth [ruler] of the Romans, reigned thirteen years, seven months, and twenty-eight days.” As can be seen in this example, some emperor’s accession notices recorded fractional parts of a year. Sometimes when Jerome was enumerating regnal years, he counted these extra months as a full year. In the case of Nero, he listed fourteen regnal years. At other ’* CM, I: 255, 351.

67

times he ignored the extra months and days, as when he rounded Nerva’s one year, four month reign down to a single year.39 Prosper likewise noted the accessions of emperors, their order in the imperial succession, and the length of their reigns. After the Passion, however, he did not follow Jerome so closely in this matter as he had before. In four cases he altered the accession notice to give an emperor either one more or one less year. In other cases he rounded off the number of years in a different way from Jerome.40 For example, both Jerome and Prosper reported at Decius’s accession that this emperor reigned for one year and three months; Jerome followed this notice with one regnal year of Decius, while Prosper included two consulates in Decius’s reign. In some of the later cases, Prosper’s motivation for deviating from Jerome’s practice is fairly obvious: a few small changes eliminated some obvious disagreements between the imperial and consular lists. The case of Decius is a good example. If Prosper had made Decius’s reign only one year long, the consulate Decio I I et Rustico would have been the First year of Gallus’s reign, absurdly following by a year Prosper’s notice of Decius’s assassination. Prosper’s deviation from Jerome’s reign-lengths of Tacitus, Galerius, Julian, and Valens all resulted in better agreement between the list of emperors and the list of consuls. Prosper’s reasons for changing the length of the reigns of earlier emperors are not clear. The following chart shows the results of his alterations:41

” Jerome ab. Abr. 2070, 2084. Helm, p.181, 185; ibid., 2112, 2113. Helm, p. 192193. 40 Prosper added one year to the reigns of Titus, Galerius, and Julian, and subtracted one from the reign of Caracalla. He rounded down in the cases of Vespasian, Antoninus Pius, Tacitus and Valens, up in the case of Decius. 41 The chart is derived from Mommsen’s, CM, 1; 351. Note that the years I count are enumerated years; in the case of Jerome, those years that he indicated by marginal numbers, and in Prosper's case, the consular years, as counted by his decadal numeration. Each chronicler made mistakes. Jerome stated (correctly) that Valens ruled fourteen years, but indicated fifteen years in the margin; his final summation requires the presence of the fifteenth year. Jerome actually assigned no regnal years to Galerius. According to Jerome (or Eusebius), Constantine was Diocletian’s successor, acceding after a single interregnal year (Helm, pp. 228-229), which was numbered as year III of the Persecution. Prosper, however, designated Galerius as Diocletian’s successor, and assigned him a two-year reign. On the other hand. Prosper states that Constantius II reigned twenty-four years, and recorded twenty-four consulates, but counted only twenty-three years in the reign in his decadal numeration.

6«

P R O S P |r

Tiberius (after XV) Vespasian Titus Pius Caracalla Decius Tacitus Galerius Constantius II Julian Valens

Enumerated Regnal Years in Jerome 8 10 2 23 7 I

Enumerated Consular Years in Prosper 10 9 3 22 6 2

1 1

-

24 2 15

2 23 3 14

Difference

+2 -1 +1

-1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1

The changes made in the reigns o f D eci us and his successors, if th^ inadvertent miscount o f Constantius II’s years is included, offsej each other; they do not require any alteration in the reigns o f earlier emperors. Prosper’s reasons for altering the reigns o f Vespasian> Titus, Antoninus Pius, and Caracalla remain obscure. Mommset) suggested that the larger, two-year, change in the number o f years attributed to Tiberius’s reign after his fifteenth year was a final adjustment by Prosper to bring the imperial list into agreement with his consular list.42 The source o f many o f Prosper’s difficulties was his consular list. Although there are only a few errors after A .D . 162, the earlier part is quite corrupt. As it stands, the consulates o f fifteen years are omitted, while sixteen consular pairs are either wholly fictitious or cases o f duplication. Prosper him self was not responsible for many o f these errors; the similarity o f his consular list to the F a s ti V in d o b o n e n s e s shows that their com m on source contained a large number o f mistakes. Yet som e errors are unique to Prosper: one false consulate has been inserted (A n n ia n o e t M a x im o between 226 and 227); the consuls o f 221 have usurped the place o f those o f 230; in five cases a single consul’s name has been om itted (222), interpolated (311), or corrupted (140, 216, 261); and, perhaps m ost im portantly, seven consulates have been left out entirely. All other errors in Prosper’s f a s t i can be found in one or the other o f the FV, if not both.43 Given the flaws both in Prosper’s consular source and in the list he 42 CM, 1: 352. 41 Prosper uniquely omitted the consuls for A.D. 31, 32, 56, 63, 110, 146, and 276. Mommsen incorrectly stated that Prosper omitted the consuls for A.D. 31, 32, 40, 43, 56, 63, and 276. Mommsen counted the consuls of 89, as found in Prosper’s list, as correct — they are at least corrupt if not wholly fictitious. For Mommsen’s discussion, see CM, 1: 255.

PROSPHR’S ΤίΡΠΌΜΙ; Ol JEROME

69

constructed from it, the close agreement between the year counts o f Prosper and Jerome can only be the result o f, in M om m sen’s words, “either miracle or fraud.” Prosper effected the reconciliation by fitting his f a s t i to Jerom e’s reckoning o f 351 years, which was necessary if he wanted to incorporate with ease notices from Jerome’s chronicle into his own epitom e. Mommsen suggested plausibly that Prosper did this fitting by eliminating from his list the seven consulates that are present in the FV but omitted from the chronicle.44 Even after he had made this adjustment. Prosper seems to have proceeded to transfer events from Jerom e’s chronicle to his own post-Passion epitom e with a certain carelessness. Some of the mistakes in dating we see in the extant manuscripts no doubt result from the m isplacem ent o f marginal notes by later copyists, or from Prosper’s honest m isreading o f Jerome. There are, however, several cases where it is fairly certain that Prosper deliberately and erroneously redated an entry.45 Likewise, it was Prosper and not a copyist w ho honored the short-lived usurper Florianus by de­ signating him the thirty-first Rom an emperor, when Jerome had merely reported his existence.46 Prosper also neglected to report the length o f the reigns o f the bishops, o f Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; in his continuation, he even failed to note the duration of papal reigns. One may wonder whether anyone could have successfully turned Jerome’s list o f regnal years into a list o f consulates using Prosper’s consular source — indeed Sulpicius Severus, w ho was a much better chronographer, found a similar task beyond him.47 But Prosper was certainly out o f his depth when he set him self such an ambitious goal. When faced with chronological problems, even simple ones, he preferred to ignore rather than resolve them. Further, he did not bother to record many precise datings available to him in Jerome’s chronicle. The changes he made in this, his major source, were arbitrary, or at least obscurely motivated. Prosper’s carelessness and his unsystematic approach to ancient chronology shows him to have 44 CM, 1: 352. 44 E.g., Prosp. 557-561. 46 Prosp. 931. 47 According to Gelzer, 2, pt. 1: 119-120, Sulpicius Severus attempted to reconcile regnal and consular reckonings in his C h ro n icle. Paulinus of Nola's response to Severus's appeal for aid can be found in Paulinus, Ep. 28.5 (CSEL 29: 245-246). Paulinus referred Severus to Rufinus of Aquileia as perhaps the only Westerner who might know enough about chronology to help.

PROSPER

70

had little interest in either precision or accuracy for their own sakes. ★ The events recorded in this third, post-Passion, section of the epitome constitute a summary of imperial and ecclesiastical history, drawn primarily from Jerome. Prosper made few changes in Jerome’s material. There are, however, some additions from other sources. The two entries taken from the consular annals have already been mentioned.48 Prosper also paid brief tribute to his major source by inserting at A.D. 331 (c. 1032) the notice “Jerome is born.” To the sorrow of Jerome’s biographers, the source and accuracy of the notice are uncertain. The works of Augustine made a more substantial contribution to this part of the epitome. Eusebius and Jerome had included in their chronicles the names of famous heretics. Prosper added to each of these entries an explanation, drawn from his master’s De haeresibus (and, in one case, from The City of God), of the nature of each heretic’s error.49 For instance, under the year 138, Prosper, quoting from Jerome ab. Abr. 2149, wrote: “ Basilides the heresiarch resided in Alexandria, from whom came the gnostics.” Then he provided a summary of the doctrines of Basilides and the gnostics adapted from De haeresibus, chapters 4 and 6: Basilides differed from the teaching of Simon because he believed in 365 heavens, the number of days in the year; whence he recommended the word Abraxas as though it were a holy name, because the letters of this name according to the Greek calculation supply the same number. The gnostics, on the other hand, are named thus from their claim to superior knowledge. Certain people call them Borboritae, in other words “filthy ones,” on account of the excessive foulness which they are said to practice in their secret rites. They teach a doctrine full of the most fantastic fabrications [figmenta]: They say that the substance of souls is of the nature of God. Their teaching is said to have a good God and an evil God.50 Prosper’s discussions of heresy, although concise, are far longer on the average than the usual brief entries derived from Jerome’s chronicle. Evidently he considered the history of dogma and the refutation of error important aspects of his chronicle. He took care to 4B See above, at n. 36. « Prosp. 617-618, 634-636, 686, 689, 691, 796, 808 (from The City o f God), 856, 890891, 919, 1010, 1026, 1059, 1063, 1130, 1149, 1171, 1252. 50 Prosp. 616-618.

71

be as complete as possible. He mentioned Sabellius, a heretic overlooked by Jerome, and amended Jerome’s favorable evaluation of Apollinaris (fl. A.D. 365) with a discussion of that prelate’s later heresy.51 It is interesting that the two main recensions of the chronicle preserve these doctrinal entries in quite different forms. In the MY recension, which may represent the edition of 455, the explanations are found in a much shortened version. Whether this is a result of Prosper’s revision or whether the differences between recensions are due to later editors is impossible to tell.52 In adapting Jerome’s account of fourth-century ecclesiastical history Prosper was more critical than he was elsewhere. Usually he either transcribed a given entry (perhaps in an abbreviated form) or omitted it. But in the last part of the epitome we see him twice deliberately and silently altering Jerome’s text. In both cases Prosper seems to be intervening to preserve the good name of the papacy. At chapter 1076 he told this story: Pope Liberius, being sent into exile, had his clergy swear not to accept any other bishop; many of them, however, broke the oath when Felix was elected by the Arians, and so the perjurers were expelled with Felix when Liberius returned after a year. In Jerome’s account it is explained that Liberius returned because “he was defeated by the tedium of exile and he subscribed to the heretical depravity;”53 but Prosper passed over this part of the story. Similarly at chapter 1122 he omitted Jerome’s description of how the supporters of Pope Damasus, personally known to the earlier chronicler, massacred the partisans of the anti-pope Ursinus.54 Prosper, by drawing a curtain over the unpleasant side of papal politics, may have been pleasing a potential audience. But his own ideology provides a motivation. From an early point in his career, Prosper had the profoundest respect for the authority and orthodoxy of the see of Rome, and maintained close links with the clergy of the great city. As we shall see in the continuation, he always thought well and spoke well of the popes, and gave no room to scandals that might bring disrepute on them. Although the break between the epitome of Jerome and Prosper’s continuation is only briefly and subtly indicated in the chronicle, we must stop here to evaluate Prosper as a purveyor of ancient history. How did his priorities differ from those of his sources? What did he Sl Prosp. 795-796, 1129. i2 See Mommsen’s comments, CM, 1: 377. v’ Jerome ab. Abr. 2365. M Jerome ah. Abr. 2382.

72

prosper

wish to convey to his readers about a world that had receded from living memory? Prosper’s actions in summarizing and simplifying Jerome s chro­ nicle are typical of the man. As a theologian, Prosper spent most of his career publicizing and popularizing the difficult and misunder­ stood teachings of Augustine, in hopes of securing for his master a wider and more appreciative audience.55 He dealt with the chronicle of Jerome, an erudite and rather overpowering work, in a similar fashion. By replacing the complex chronological apparatus devised by Eusebius and adopted by Jerome with a simple list of biblical kings, Roman emperors and consuls, Prosper made his chronicle more accessible to the average reader. He may well have thought that what he had eliminated would be missed by few, for in the Latin west there was no sophisticated tradition of chronography as there was in the Greek-speaking east. In his selection of events, too, Prosper was inclined to leave out material that concerned the distant past of the Greeks and other peoples of the ancient east, but he retained most of the biblical and Roman history recorded by his predecessors. In imperial, or rather Christian times, his epitome is much fuller than for the period before Christ. His criteria for selection, then, appear to reflect what he thought would be relevant to his Latin audience. He favored biblical knowledge over pagan learning, the Roman past over the more exotic history of the Levant, the times since Christ and Augustus over the more ancient period. His vision of the useful past was narrower and more western than that of Eusebius and Jerome. A final noteworthy characteristic of the chronicle is its doctrinal emphasis. Prosper’s brief lectures on the errors of the heretics are an obvious original element. At first reading they look like shockingly didactic intrusions into the straightforward accounts of Eusebius and Jerome. This initial impression is deceptive. Both of the earlier chroniclers instructed their readers on a variety of subjects and gave to some a special emphasis. For Eusebius apologetic chronology was the basis of his entire enterprise. Jerome’s desire to put straight the record of the Arian controversy shaped his continuation. Like his predecessors. Prosper addressed what he saw as the important religious issues of his time. Certainly his theological discussions, 55 In the Pro Augustino responsiones ad capitula objectionum Gallorum calumniantium praef. (PL 51: 155-156) Prosper characterized his method thus: “I shall answer, one by one, each of the articles which they [i.e., the Gauls attacking Augustine] brand as unacceptable, in a few brief and precise words...My intention is to enable even a hurried reader to see the injustice of the slander they spread against this Catholicd o c t o r . (trans. De Letter, Defense o f Augustine, p. 139).

73

which are found in his continuation as well, reveal his own analytical approach to doctrine, and his concern to warn the orthodox and defend the true faith against alien dogma; but their inclusion was within the tradition of the chronicle as he received it. Prosper’s epitome may have met the needs of his contemporary readership, which as we shall see was a wide one; yet ultimately his simplification and recasting of Jerome did not enjoy the lasting success of the similar, later epitomes of Isidore and Bede. By the seventh century at least, copyists were going out of their way to attach Prosper’s continuation to the unabridged chronicle of Jerome, so that they could have a fuller rather than a simpler account of antiquity. Prosper’s epitome may have been too long for the reader who wanted the shortest possible overview of antiquity; also, his consular chronology, familiar to his own time, fell out of use and was understood only by the most learned. In the medieval period Prosper was read by those who wanted not less but more detailed chronicles; his popularity in later ages rests almost entirely on his account of his own time, to which we now turn.

4. Prosper’s Continuation — General Characteristics No major break in style or chronological method divides the epitome of Jerome from Prosper’s entirely original continuation. A single notice, chapter 1166 in Mommsen’s edition, informs the reader that one authority has been succeeded by another: “Up to this point the priest Jerome put the preceding years in order. We have taken care to add those things which follow.” Jerome’s final summation of years is omitted, and Prosper takes up the tale with no noticeable change in format. Yet the continuation, which is to a great extent Prosper’s record of the events of his own lifetime, has its distinctive features, and these soon emerge. The continuation reflects its author’s interests and priorities and is stamped by his individual manner of expression. As we shall see, there are important differences between Prosper’s various editions. Other characteristics are found throughout the continuation, and need to be discussed here, before we begin a more detailed examination. The continuation differs from the preceding epitome in the basic matter of chronology. The method is the same, with a framework based on the consular/as«', but where the epitome is haphazard, the

74

PROSPER

continuation is careful and accurate. Prosper maintained a true count of years from the end of Jerome’s account, an accomplishment not to be underrated; this task, so easy for us but quite difficult in ancient times, was beyond the powers of many other fifth-and sixthcentury chroniclers. By contrast, Hydatiusand the Chronicler of452, who both used a regnal chronology, made serious errors that still puzzle us today. 56 Prosper’s placement of individual events within his consular framework is likewise almost always correct. In fact, several of Prosper’s rare errors in dating appear to be deliberate, introduced for rhetorical purpose, or to connect events thematically related but not chronologically adjacent. The contrast between the accurate dating of the continuation and the sloppy construction of the epitome is considerable. Indeed, a certain subtlety missing from the epitome seems to be the distinguishing feature of the continuation. Take, for instance, Prosper’s use of sources in the two parts of the chronicle. The epitome is a rather crude compilation of its sources, all of which can be identified. In the continuation, however, Prosper reworked his material with an eye to consistency and even a certain elegance of style. One result is that the sources for the continuation are mysterious. Holder-Egger argued for the use of Orosius in one place, because both men incorrectly suggest that the Goth Radagaisus invaded Italy at the same time as Alaric’s first incursion.57 It is more significant that nothing else in Prosper’s chronicle seems to be derived from Orosius. His description of early fifth-century events is quite independent of the earlier history. Prosper’s dependence on the FV for his consular list and for two entries in the epitome makes it logical to surmise that he used some early version of the FV in the continuation as well. But when Prosper is compared with the appropriate sections of the FV, it becomes evident that the two historical accounts are unrelated: there are many differences in the dating and selection of events, and no cases where the two accounts share significant details or use similar phrases to express the same facts. Nor does Prosper’s text resemble the remnants of Italian consular annals preserved in the Merseburg fragment or those in the margins of the Copenhagen manuscript of Prosper. 58 56 See below, chapter IV, § 3, and appendix. 57 Holder-Egger, “ Die Chronik Prospers,” pp. 87-88. 58 For the Merseburg fragment, see Bischoff and Koehler, “ Eine illustrierte Ausgabe;” for the Copenhagen continuation of Prosper, CM, 1: 266-271, 298-303.

75

There are, however, some similarities between entries in the continuation and the Constantinopolitan section of the Consularia Hydatiana, up to 395. Although most of these resemblances are very minor, in two cases they are more substantial: Prosper (382) Aithanaricus rex Gothorum apud Constantinopolim quinto dccimo die quam fuerat susceptus occiditur.

Consularia Hydatiana (381) His conss. ingressus est Aithanaricus rex Gothorum Constantinoplim die III id. Ian. [11 Jan.] Eodem mense diem functus idem Aithanaricus VIII kal. Feb. [25 Jan.]

(388) Maximus tyrannus Valenti­ niano et Theodosio impp. in tertio ab Aquileia lapide spoliatus indumentis regiis sistitur et capite damnatur, cuius filius Victor eodem anno ab Arbogaste comite est interfectus in Gallia.

(388) Et ipso anno occiditur hostis publicus Maximus tyrannus a Theudosio Aug. in miliario III ab Aquileia die V kal. Aug. Sed et filius eius Victor occiditur post paucos dies in Gallis a comite Theudosii Aug.

Did Prosper perhaps have access to a version of the annals related to both the FV and the CH ? 59 The form of Prosper’s notices provides a further indication that he may have used some now-lost set of annals as the basis for his discussion of the late fourth and the early fifth centuries. Until the 410s, Prosper’s political and military notices are very short (averaging less than two lines in Mommsen’s edition) and contain almost no expressed opinions. Yet such reports in this early part of the continuation achieve a geographical precision almost entirely lacking thereafter. A few examples follow: c. 1183 (384) ... Gratian was defeated at Paris owing to the treason of the m a g is te r m ilitu m Merobaudes; while fleeing he was captured and killed at Lyon, c. 1222 (402) At Pollentia a tremendous battle was fought against the Goths with loss on both sides, c . 1263 (417) Honorius entered Rome in a triumph with Attalus walk­ ing in front of his chariot. Honorius ordered Attalus to live in exile on Lipara.

Entries that locate non-ecclesiastical events so precisely are largely restricted to Prosper’s first edition of 433, and most predate 418. Such later events as Litorius’s famous capture by the Goths, Attila’s ^ Seeck, “Idatius und die Chronik von Constantinopel,” pp. 601-615.

76

PROSPER

battle with Aetius, or the Hun’s meeting with Pope Leo the Great, all of which are dramatically portrayed by Prosper, are given no particular location by him. We can take this vagueness about the location of events which are demonstrably of great interest to Prosper and which took place in his own lifetime as reflecting the chronicler’s own habits of mind. The earlier precision about events of his youth or before probably indicates the use of a written source or sources that used the abbreviated but precise style of the annals. In later sections of the continuation it is impossible to detect any known source. We can be certain only that Prosper shaped his material with a literary care that is quite remarkable. Where the epitome’s entries are generally short and colorless, the continuation has many long and well-crafted entries, reminiscent of Jerome’s work. As in his theological treatises, Prosper wrote with a close eye to the balance and rhythm of his prose. 60 His use of vocabulary was also precise. He linked some entries by using the same word in contrasting senses. For instance, the cura (anxiety) of a tyrant is set against the cura (solicitude) of a saintly bishop, and thereby a point is made, albeit indirectly, about the use that good and evil men make of power.61 Likewise certain key words, such as discordia and superbia, are repeated, not because Prosper lacked imagination, but because he wished to emphasize a theme. But if stylistic sophistication was sometimes used by Prosper to reveal a meaning, at other times it acted as a cloak. Although he forthrightly expressed his feelings about ecclesiastical affairs, he was often obscure and elliptical in discussing politics. To some degree, this obscurity must have been the product of discretion, the kind of precaution taken by writers in autocratic states to avoid offending the powerful and influential; but it is also possible that Prosper was tempted to embroider facts commonly known simply to increase the literary appeal of his account. Some of the apparent obscurity of Prosper’s discussion of military and political affairs is not obscurity at all, but results from his adoption of a distinctive moral viewpoint. He was not indifferent to the troubles of the empire, and had a rather keen appreciation of practical politics. But he was not interested in trends, or in the clash of nations. He did not talk about barbarian invasions, and seldom used the words Romani or barbari. For him, secular history was1 111 On Prosper’s style, see Valentin, pp. 525-605. 61 See Prosp. 1348, 1350, and below, § 6 at η. 117.

77

primarily a collection of moral exempla. His chronicle is a parade of individual rulers and generals, people who display by their conduct the workings of particular virtues and vices — usually the latter. On occasion these leaders are contrasted with ecclesiastical figures, who generally fare better in Prosper’s judgement. Great events are presented as the results of the actions of such individuals. Prosper’s focus on individual morality is consistent with his whole theology, and it also allowed him to justify in a subtle manner the ways of God to man. There was no way he could avoid describing the many disasters that overtook the Roman state in his own time, and it was equally hard to avoid taking some kind of stand on their moral significance. By ascribing failures and setbacks to the defects and vices of individual leaders, he could explain recent troubles without blaming them on his readers’ moral lapses — a risky strategy — and without arguing, as Orosius did on occasion, that recent disasters were actually blessings in disguise. Prosper’s interest in individual morality also explains the unusual lack of supernatural manifestations in his chronicle. He was the only fifth-century chronicler who avoided linking ordinary historical events to prodigies and natural catastrophes. Furthermore, despite his marked ecclesiastical emphasis, he said nothing about miracles, discoveries of relics, or other spectacular interventions in earthly affairs. No dead saints play any role in his history; only rarely did he explicitly show God helping living men. He repeated the well-known story of the prophecy of the anchorite John of Lycopolis, that Theodosius I would overcome the usurper Eugenius;62 later, he told his readers that God helped Pope Leo to accomplish various outstanding deeds. Yet Leo’s accomplishments, impressive as they are, do not involve the open use of supernatural powers. We can account for this avoidance of the miraculous by reference to other fifth-century writers. Possidius, Augustine’s biographer, told of his subject’s miracles as briefly as possible, relegating them to one short chapter of his work. He devoted the rest of the biography to portraying Augustine as a teacher, an example of Christian living, and a pastoral bishop. He demonstrated how God subtly guided Augustine in these activities without visible mechanism but with effective results. Likewise Salvian, in De gubernatione Dei, showed 62 This incident was mentioned by Augustine in De civitate Dei 5.26. (CSEL 47: 161), as proof of Theodosius’s piety in seeking advice from a truly holy man rather than from some superstitious source. Prosper drew no explicit lesson from the story, and his focus was on John rather than Theodosius.

PROSPER

78

the Romans the results of their impiety by discussing the practical consequences of their evil ways; he described providential punish­ ment without invoking miracles. The authors of both works disregarded the supernatural not because they disbelieved in it, but because they did not wish it to detract from their moral and religious lessons. A similar strategy lies behind Prosper’s presentation.63 Finally, it must be pointed out that Prosper was usually concerned with a very small part of the Roman empire. For him, the eastern empire scarcely seems to have existed, unless developments there affected the status of the dynasty or the peace of the church. He was equally indifferent to most of the west. The world of his chronicle, both ecclesiastical and secular, revolves around the ancient city of the Caesars and St. Peter.64 The bias is easily explained. Prosper was a papal partisan before he moved to Rome, and even his first edition reflects, in a very general way, his visit to Rome in 431.65Nevertheless it is rather astonishing to note that Prosper did not mention even once the city of Ravenna, which was through most of his lifetime the western imperial capital. The subtleties of Prosper’s continuation require us to analyze his account with great care. There are many places where our ignorance of fifth-century conditions and his elliptical manner prevent us from being certain of what he meant by a particular passage. Our interpretation of his continuation must therefore be built up through careful attempts to discern a pattern in his coverage of events.

5. The Edition of 433 Prosper’s continuation of Jerome’s history down to his own time is the most original part of his chronicle. The modern reader would like to know just how original it is — how far the information contained 63 Possidius, Vila sancti Augustini (PL 32: 33-65); Salvian, De gubernatione Dei (MGH: AA, 1). 64 This, in fact, had been a characteristic of almost all history written in Latin since the beginning. See Fornara, p. 53. 65 It was surely at the court of Pope Celestine that he learned of the appointment of Palladius as bishop to the Irish, the resistance Constantius the ex-vicarius offered the Roman Pelagians, and Felix’s murder of Titus the deacon. He probably picked up certain political information there as well: perhaps the account of Boniface’s flight to Africa in 422. It is probably at Rome that Prosper acquired his consular list (so similar to those found in the Italian annals) and perhaps even his copy of Jerome’s chronicle, for Rome was the major center for its diffusion (Schoene, Die Weltchronik, pp. 121129).

THE EDITION OF 433

79

in the chronicle reflects Prosper’s personal awareness o f contem ­ porary events, and how much he derived from written sources. Certainly all the material cannot rest equally on his own authority. But Prosper did not reveal a when he began to write from personal observation. N or did he detectably use known sources. Yet we are not com pletely unable to ascertain what Prosper personally contributed to the continuation. The most useful indi­ cation we have is stylistic. In his epitom e o f Jerome, where Prosper added only a negligible am ount o f new informatibn to what he found in his sources, the notices — especially political ones — are very brief and completely impersonal. In the continuation, Prosper’s political account remains brief and without express judgements on the chronicler’s part until the early 420s; as we have seen above, there is also evidence that he used a lost annalistic source for this period. From the early 420s, however, he wrote at greater length and in a more opinionated manner. Chapter 1278 (at A .D . 422) marks a change in his attitude towards politics. It was here that he expressed his first clear judgem ents o f individuals, and first applied to politics a distinctive moral analysis that he used often thereafter. Whether or not Prosper began to write about politics from his personal observation at this point, it is from 422 that he was vitally interested and presented an original point o f view. The same considerations do not apply to his discussion o f ecclesiastical history. Prosper’s interest in church affairs, his access to details o f events, and perhaps his personal memories o f them, all seem to reach much further back than 422. Whether one looks at the epitome o f Jerome, the early parts o f the continuation, or the last decade, 423-433, much the same interests and emphases are present. There is a continuity in his ecclesiastical history that is lacking in his discussion o f secular events. For this reason, when we look at the edition o f 433, it is useful to divide Prosper’s continuation into an ecclesiastical account and a political one. The division is artificial, o f course, since some entries belong to both classifications; yet the separation is justified, not only by the clarity it lends to our discussion, but by Prosper’s own approach to events.

i. Prosper and the church Our survey o f Prosper’s edition o f 433 properly begins with the

80

PROSPIiR

ecclesiastical entries. Although they are very much a minority,66 there is good reason to consider them the core o f the first edition. They largely treat questions o f true belief and ecclesiastical authority, questions that Prosper devoted his life to answering. In 433 he was still attempting to root out from his countrym en’s minds what he considered the remnants o f Pelagianism. One powerful motive for writing the chronicle was to set the record straight about the recent theological controversy. Only a few years earlier, he had devoted much o f the poem D e in g r a tis to tracing the entire course o f the doctrinal conflict.67 In undertaking the task a second time he no doubt hoped to reach a wider audience. But Prosper was by no means com pletely preoccupied with Pelagianism. He recorded other significant instances o f doctrinal and disciplinary conflict and their resolution. His interest in the rights and wrongs o f such disputes and his profound respect for the Roman see as the ultimate ecclesiastical authority are the most noteworthy features o f his account. Little else is m entioned in the ecclesiastical portion o f this edition. Prosper’s discussion o f the years 378-399 is rather sparse in comparison with later parts o f the continuation. Yet it is not without interest, both for what it says and for what it does not. In all there are ten entries concerned with ecclesiastical matters. Six note the election o f popes or the existence o f the great Latin churchmen o f the period, Ambrose, Martin, Jerome, and Augustine. An atypical notice records the prophecy o f John o f Lycopolis, w ho predicted the victory o f Theodosius I in his civil war with Maximus; this is as close as Prosper gets to a miracle story.68 The remaining three entries trace the rise and fall o f the heretic Priscillian, and in a manner that reveals som ething interesting about Prosper’s attitude to the relation between the church and the Roman state. The first notice is chapter 1171 (A .D . 379), which is condensed from Augustine’s D e h a e r e s ib u s (c. 70) and describes Priscillianism as being derived from gnosticism and M anichaeanism. Prosper next proceeded to relate the exceptional end o f Priscillian’s career (c. 1187): 66 Only twenty-seven of eighty-three substantial entries. This count of entries excludes the doubtful chapters 1168, 1125, 1213, 1214, 1268, which are found only in mss. R or V (but never in both). Chapter 1241 is counted as part of 1240, and chapter 1285 considered as authentic Prosper. 67 Valentin, p. 230. “ Prosp. 1182 (Siricius), 1212 (Anastasius); 1173 (Ambrose), 1175 (Martin), 1186 (Jerome), 1204 (Augustine); 1201 (John the Anchorite; see § 4 and n. 62 above).

mi i nmoN or 433

81

Priscillian, know ing him self be ab ou t to be condem ned by the synod o f Bordeaux, appealed to the em peror M axim us. H e was tried at Trier by E uvodius, M axim us’s p raeto rian prefect, and condem ned to death, as were E uchrotia, the wife o f the rh eto r D elfidius, L atronianus and others of his com panions in error. A t B ordeaux a certain disciple o f Priscillian nam ed U rbica w as, on account o f her stubbornness in im piety, stoned to death in an outbreak o f m ob violence [per sedition em vulgi].

This lengthy chapter treats a subject o f unusual interest. The secular trial and execution o f a heretic was unprecedented, and provoked a storm o f controversy am ong contemporaries. Itacius o f Ossonuba and Hydatius o f Merida, two Spanish bishops, had used the power o f the state against Priscillian without com punction, and with the support o f other bishops. Other orthodox leaders, including such prominent people as Martin o f Tours and Am brose, had looked askance at the proceedings from the beginning, and condemned the shedding o f blood in such a case. The critics won the day soon after the downfall o f M aximus, and secured the excommunication o f Itacius and H ydatius.69 In Prosper’s own time, the harsher opinion was beginning to reemerge. In the 440s Leo the Great, a man associated with Prosper, agreed that coercion against the Priscillianists was justifiable because o f their complete depravity.70 Prosper was not explicit, but in 433 he seems to have held to the opinion o f Am brose, Martin, and Sulpicius Severus. His primary interest was not in the scandals that surrounded Priscillian in life, but rather that which accom panied his death. At chapter 1193, he showed the reader what is clearly the aftermath o f an unfortunate incident: “ Itacius and Ursacius [sc. Hydatius] were excommunicated on account o f the slaughter [ n e x ] o f Priscillian, whose accusers they were.” All this is consistent with Prosper’s disapproval, documented elsewhere, o f improper secular interference in church affairs. A startling aspect o f Prosper’s account o f the late fourth century is his silence on the religious initiatives taken by the emperor Theo­ dosius I. T heodosius’s support for the Nicene cause and his attacks on all forms o f incorrect belief were recognized by contemporaries as constituting a religious revolution. It was a process that did not lack dramatic incidents: the great Serapium o f Alexandria was destroyed amid scenes o f violence, while the revolt o f Eugenius against Hubert Jedin and John Dolan (eds.). H is to r y o f th e C h u rch (New York, 1965-81), 2: 129-135. 711 Hyd. 13.C h r o n . 4 5 2 12. See below, chapter IV, § 7 (Chronicler of 452), chapter V, § 9 (Leo).

82

PROSPER

Theodosius in 392-395 led to an abortive pagan revival in Rome.71 None of this found its way into Prosper’s continuation. One can suggest reasons for the omissions. Theodosius’s suppression of Arianism had a far greater impact in the east than in Gaul or Italy, and Prosper was surprisingly but consistently indifferent to eastern affairs. Paganism was a subject he never wasted any words on; evidently he considered it discredited and best forgotten.72 Yet Prosper’s complete silence on Theodosius’s religious policies, which were known and highly praised by his contemporary, the generally ill-informed Chronicler o f452, seems to require another explanation. His slighting of Theodosius’s role as an upholder of orthodoxy is part of a general reluctance to credit secular leaders with authority within the church. Throughout the chronicle, he ignored the involvement of emperors and officials in ecclesiastical affairs; in almost every case, their intervention was mentioned only to be condemned. Prosper had no doubts about who held supreme authority in the church. His first remarks on the subject are found in chapter 1220 (A.D. 401), in his account of a conflict between the sees of Constantinople and Alexandria: John [Chrysostom] the bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus the bishop of Alexandria were considered holy men.73 Both, however, were blinded by dissension [discordia], which proceeded so far that John was overthrown by Theophilus and forced to go into exile in Pontus. Nevertheless, most of the bishops, following the example of the Roman pontiff, stayed in communion with him. Prosper made no reference to the issue between the two great bishops of the east, but preferred to deplore the discordia that blighted them. As to the rights and wrongs of the matter, he applied his invariable measuring-stick, the judgement of the bishop of Rome, which he showed in this case to be the judgement of the better part of the church as well. Little more is said about ecclesiastical affairs in the next decade;74 71 Jedin and Dolan, 2: 218-221; A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602 (Oxford, 1964), 1: 165-169. 72 Both in his polemical works and in his chronicle Prosper discussed correct and incorrect Christian doctrine at length, but had very little to say about paganism, whether in the past or in the present. Valentin, p. 553, notes Prosper’s complete avoidance of mythological references in his verse, which was Christian throughout. 73 “Johannes Constantinopolitanus et Theophilus Alexandrinus episcopi sancti habentur.” Jerome often used such phraseology to briefly note the existence of a famous person. E.g., Jerome ab Abr. 2290: “Eusebius Laodicenus episcopus insignis habetur.” 74 There is only a brief notice of Pope Innocent’s election at Prosp. 1223 (A.D. 402).

THE EDITION OF 433

83

the spotlight is on civil war and barbarian invasion. But under 412 (c. 1247) Prosper reported another scandalous deposition o f a bishop, one much closer to home:

A t th at tim e [following C onstantius’s victory over the usurper C onstantine] when H eros, a holy m an [vir s a n c tu s ] and a disciple o f the blessed M artin, was presiding at the tow n of Arles as bishop, he was expelled by the people o f th at city even though he was innocent and not answ erable for any crime. O rdained in his place was Patroclus, a friend and com panion of C onstantius, whose favor was thereby sought. The affair was a source o f great dissension [ d is c o r d ia ] am ong the bishops o f th at region. This incident took place when Prosper was already an adult, and no doubt he could have told us more about it had he cared to. Many o f the com plications are known to us. Patroclus, whose politicallymotivated murder is recorded later in the chronicle, was hated by many in Gaul for his corruption and especially his attempts to make Arles the metropolitan see o f southwestern Gaul. Heros was vulnerable to deposition because o f his identification with the usurper Constantine. One reason why Prosper favored Heros was that, while in exile in Palestine, he opposed Pelagius’s attempts to establish him self there.75 But as a good chronicler, Prosper told his readers only the essentials. Chapter 1247 is the story o f a crime, o f a good and holy man ( v ir s a n c tu s is a rare commendation) who was victimized by those among his people who preferred an influential bishop to a saintly one. The ultimate effect o f mixing politics and church affairs was the deplorable one o f disunity in the church. Curiously enough for an account written by a Gallic author, chapter 1247 is the last entry but one to treat the Gallic church in detail. Except for the report o f Patroclus’s murder (to be analyzed am ong the political notices below) Prosper’s focus was elsewhere: on the Roman church and especially on the battle against heresy in which it took the lead. The heresy o f which we read the most is o f course that o f Pelagius. Pelagianism first appears at A .D . 413 (chapter 1 252; D e h a e r e s ib u s 88), where it is defined: “A t this time. Pelagius, a Briton, asserted with his supporters Caelestius and Julian [o f Eclanum] the dogma named after him, which attacked the grace o f Christ. He won many people over to this heretical opinion.” Pelagian doctrine is then described at length. Five more entries, an exceptional number, 75 Jedin and Dolan, 2: 167-168, 260-261. For Patroclus’s death, see below in this section following n. 91.

PROSPER

document the response of the orthodox. Under the year 416, where Prosper recorded the election of Pope Zosimus, he added “ in this time, the Pelagians, already condemned by Pope Innocent, were being resisted by the diligence of the Africans and chiefly by the knowledge of bishop Augustine.” A touch of drama is lent by chapter 1265 (A.D. 418), which condenses a hard fought theological debate that raged in Rome into a single incident: At this time Constantius, a servant of Christ and an e x -v ic a r iu s living at Rome, was resisting the Pelagians most devotedly for the grace o f God. He endured many things from that faction, which [by its actions] placed him among the holy confessors.

Other, less happy aspects of the struggle, especially Zosimus’s initial support for Caelestius and Pelagius, are left in oblivion.76 More relevant for Prosper’s purpose was the final outcome, reported in the next entry. A council of 214 bishops meeting in Carthage denounced the heresy, and Zosimus confirmed their actions. As a result, “the Pelagian heresy was condemned throughout the whole world.” Although the doctrinal issue was now settled for the majority of Christians, there were still recalcitrants. In three later entries. Prosper described the continued efforts of the orthodox against the unrepentant. Chapter 1301 (A.D. 429), shows Pope Celestine taking action to root out Pelagianism in the farthest part of the Roman world: Agricola, a Pelagian, the son of the Pelagian bishop Severianus, corrupted the British churches by the insinuation [in sin u a tio ] of his doctrine. But at the persuasion [in sin u a tio ] o f the deacon Palladius, Pope Celestine sent Germanus, bishop o f Auxerre, as his repre­ sentative, and having ejected the heretics, directed the Britons to the catholic faith.

As an isolated piece of information, chapter 1301 is most interesting as a contemporary record of the first expedition of Germanus to Britain, made famous by the later biography of the bishop by Constantius of Lyon (c. A.D. 480). It is one of the few notices of British affairs after 410 by any fifth-century author. But in the context of Prosper’s chronicle, the entry is noteworthy for the way Prosper attributed not only the authority behind the expedition but the entire initiative to the Roman clergy, and especially Celestine. Germanus, who actually made the voyage, is presented as merely an 76 Jedin and Dolan, 2: 169-170; Brown, Augustine, 359-362.

85

instrument of the pope. It is Celestine who ejected the heretics and directed the Britons back to orthodoxy. Prosper’s treatment of this episode reveals his priorities quite clearly. He had no more intrinsic interest in Britain than the majority of his contemporaries; perhaps very little in Germanus. The story was included to commemorate another victory for the orthodox over the Pelagians, and even more to demonstrate the leading part taken by the Roman church in the fight for the true faith, even in remote corners of the world. The same point was made in chapter 1307 (A.D. 431), an intriguing and all-too-brief sequel: “Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots [i.e. Irish] who believed in Christ, and was ordained as their first bishop.” Pelagianism is mentioned twice more in the last years of the first edition, once in connection with the death of Augustine, where Prosper eulogized his master as “ most excellent in all things,” and noted that “at the very end of his days, and in the midst of the attack of the besieging Vandals, [he was] responding to the books of Julian of Eclanum and persevering gloriously in the defense of Christian grace,” a second time in his report of the Council of Ephesus(c. 1306, A.D. 431), which was called to judge Nestorius, bishop of Constan­ tinople, for his Christological errors: “ ...Nestorius was condemned along with the heresy bearing his name and many Pelagians, who were supporting a doctrine related to their own.” The connection between the two heresies was not as artificial as it may seem here, nor was Prosper the only one who made it. Other contemporary observers, including Cassian, attacked Nestorius because he seemed to share some errors with Pelagius, and the alliance between Nestorius and the surviving Pelagian leaders was sober fact.77 Pope Celestine was not present at Ephesus, which was one of the great universal councils of the fifth century, and Prosper did not mention his name in connection with it. Yet by this point the chronicler had made it clear to his readers that Celestine had led the opposition to Nestorius. He concluded chapter 1297 (A.D. 428), which described the new heresy, with this statement: “[Nestorius’s impiety] was fought principally by the diligence of Bishop Cyril of Alexandria and the authority of Pope Celestine.” The unequal terms '7 Shortly before he wrote the first edition of his chronicle, Prosper had penned a brief attack on the two heresies entitled Epitaphium Nestorianae el Pelagianaehercseon (PL 51: 496). The poeni shows that both heresies attack the doctrine of grace. Likewise Cassian and Marius Mercator connected the two heresies; see Owen Chadwick, John Cassian, 2nd. ed. (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 141-147. On the alliance between Nestorius and the remaining Pelagians, see Jedin and Dolan, 2: 174.

86

prosper

in which Prosper described the alliance of the two great bishops are significant. Prosper’s account of the struggle for orthodoxy and against heresy repeatedly emphasizes the theological and disciplinary authority that inhered in the See of Rome. There is also a distinct bow in the direction of Augustine and the African church for their efforts against Pelagius. Augustine appears in three separate places in the chronicle, a sign of great prominence in a work of such brevity. Jerome is similarly honored . 78 But despite the respect shown the great teachers, it is the bishops of Rome who take pride of place. It is they who judge the quarrels of the eastern church (in the case of John Chrysostom) and correct its errors (in the case of Nestorius); it is they who establish the true faith in distant lands; and above all, it is they who have ensured that Pelagianism, for Prosper the most dangerous of contemporary heresies, should be condemned throughout the world. Prosper’s respect for the bishops of Rome, and his reliance on their authority as the surest standard of orthodoxy, as seen in the chronicle, are consistent with the position he had already staked out in his polemical works, and would continue to hold for the rest of his life. Not only did Prosper positively demonstrate the special standing of the bishops of Rome within the church, he omitted from his account anything that might vitiate his picture. Incidents such as the discreditable schism that split the Roman church in 419 and required imperial intervention are omitted because they would not have produced the proper impression on Prosper’s readers, who were given instead a picture well calculated to show the bishop of Rome as a universal bishop, the unchallenged leader of the church of Christ. Equally noteworthy is Prosper’s neglect of the Gallic church. He ignored the leading lights of Gallic monasticism, such men as Cassian and Vincent of Lérins, who were famous in their day and long after. Being neither heretics nor whole-hearted supporters of Augustine’s teachings on grace, they had no essential part in Prosper’s presentation, and in fact were somewhat inconvenient subjects. He did not wish to dwell on the ambiguities of the situation in Gaul, but to write a plain history of the successful defense of the undoubted truth. Prosper’s ecclesiastical success story is provided with an appro­ priate ending in the penultimate notice of the first edition. The 78 Prosp. 1204, 1261, 1304 (Augustine); 1032, 1186, 1274 (Jerome).

THI-: HDITION ΟΙ- 433

87

victory of truth and unity over heresy and discord is sealed by the election of a popular pope, Sixtus, who assumes his office in an atmosphere of marvelous unanimity [consensio mirabilis]. ii. Prosper and politics

It was noted above that the political account contained in Prosper’s first edition can be divided stylistically at about A.D. 422. Before that date, Prosper’s coverage of events is abbreviated, impersonal, and possibly based in part on lost consular annals. From 422, however, the entries are fuller and more developed; they also begin to reveal Prosper’s judgements on the immediate past.79 His presentation of political affairs divides thematically at precisely the same point. In the first part. Prosper, like the anonymous annalists of the period, was almost entirely preoccupied with events of dynastic import. He described the establishment of the Theodosian dynasty in the West and its success in weathering both challenges by numerous usurpers and barbarian invasions. The last decade of the edition of 433 tells a less pleasant tale: one of dissension and civil war with no happy ending, of the Roman state exposed to its enemies by the unwilling­ ness of its ostensible defenders to cooperate. Jerome closed his chronicle with the battle of Adrianople, where the Goths destroyed a Roman army and killed the eastern emperor Valens. Since the Goths were never again expelled from the empire and were soon given permission to live on Roman soil under their own kings, many historians have regarded the year 378 as a turning point, the beginning of the end of the empire. There is no trace in Prosper’s continuation that he regarded the year 379 as the start of a new era. His single entry on the Gothic sojourn in the Balkans has no ominous overtones — quite the contrary, in fact. Chapter 1177 records the removal by murder of the Gothic king Athanaric on the course of a visit to Constantinople.80 For Prosper, the most important consequence of Adrianople was unconnected with the Goths: it was the accession of Theodosius I. At Valens’s death his nephew Gratian, already western emperor, became senior Augustus. He was a young man with little practical military experience and his only colleague was a child, his brother ” See above, at the head of this seetion. *" It is unlikely that Athanaric was murdered; see above, § 4, for the contemporary annalistic record, which merely states that the king died. Prosper’s statement may reflect later propaganda.

88

PROSPER

Valentinian II. The situation in the east required a strong hand. Thus Gratian looked for a general to replace Valens, and found Theodosius, him self the son o f a fam ous general. Theodosius was a vigorous and determined man. We have noted his revolutionary religious policies above; his impact on politics was no less profound. Within five years, follow ing the death o f Gratian in 384, he was acting as senior emperor. As such he twice prevented attempts by Western armies to throw up emperors o f their own. By securing the succession o f his sons to the throne, he confirmed the principle o f dynastic government; by leaving the east to his elder son Arcadius, he likewise confirmed C onstantinople’s position as the political center o f the Roman world. Prosper, as we have seen, said nothing at all about the religious results o f T heodosius’s supremacy. But as a subject o f Valentinian III, T heodosius’s grandson, he had an interest in the dynastic politics o f the empire since 379. Indeed, until the appearance o f the G oths in Italy, and even afterwards, until 422, scarcely any other political subject is m entioned in his chronicle. The emphasis on the fortunes o f the dynasty is particularly evident in the first few years o f Prosper’s continuation, where one- or twoline entries record only the essential facts: the accession o f Gratian as senior emperor, his appointment o f Theodosius as his eastern colleague (c. 1167, 1170, A .D . 378, 379), the elevation o f Arcadius as Augustus (c. 1179, A .D . 383), the birth o f T heodosius’s younger son Honorius (c. 1181, A .D . 384). Chapter 1177, describing the death o f Athanaric, is the only entry not dynastically oriented — and it may have been originally relegated to the margin. The first western entry in the continuation is more detailed, and concerns the revolt o f the famous Magnus Maximus (c. 1183, A .D . 384):

M axim us was m ade em peror in Britain in an uprising o f the soldiery. He soon crossed to G aul. G ratian was defeated at Paris owing to the treason o f M erobaudes the m a g i s t e r m i l i tu m , and was captured in flight at Lyon and killed. M axim us m ade his son V ictor his colleague in power. The details included here might lead one to expect further particulars o f M axim us’s eventful reign. But we are told nothing about the com plex politics o f the era, in which Ambrose played the uncomfortable role o f ambassador from the pro-Arian Italian court

89

of Valentinian II to the orthodox but illegitimate court of Maximus.81 Save for Maximus’s involvement in the death of Priscillian, Prosper recorded nothing about his reign except his defeat at the hands of Theodosius (c. 1191, A.D. 388): The tyrant Maximus, despoiled of his royal garments by the emperors Valentinian and Theodosius at the third milestone from Aquileia, was called forth to judgement and condemned to death. In the same year his son Victor was killed by Count Arbogast in Gaul.

The entry ignores Maximus’s invasion of Italy, which provoked the war with the legitimate emperors, and barely alludes to the battle in which he was defeated. The focus is squarely on the final fate of the usurper and that of his son. Excluding his involvement in an exceptional heresy trial, the relevant facts about Maximus are those surrounding his rise and fall: where and when he seized power, and where and when he came to his well-deserved end. The pattern is reminiscent of that found in the various consular annals, which in fact may well be the source of the information in Prosper’s account, especially the details of location and date. Similarly, the revolt of Eugenius is treated in three chapters which tell us little about the rebel himself. Prosper dealt with the numerous usurpers of the early fifth century even more briefly. Their reigns generated few anecdotes. An exceptionally long entry (c. 1245, A.D. 412) tells us no more about a second, obscure Maximus than that he resigned his usurped office and was pardoned “because the modesty and insignificance of the man did not merit the jealousy of the throne he had tried to seize.” Other usurpers are dismissed even more quickly. Prosper focused so narrowly on the birth, accession, and death of legitimate princes and the uprising and suppression of their rivals that he was content to pass over even major events that did not fit that mold, such as the African revolt of Gildo, a rebel who did not claim the throne. The deadly rivalry between the ministers of Honorius and Arcadius (western and eastern emperors following the death of Theodosius in 395) is referred to only in the most oblique manner. 82 Even what Prosper said about the barbarian invasions of the early fifth century emphasizes his preoccupation with the threat of civil Kl For a description of the period see J.F. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court: A.D. Ì64-425 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 171-225. Prosp. 1216 records the fall of Eutropius, but says nothing about his politics.

90

PROSPER

war. Between 401 and 416, several barbarian armies crossed Honorius’s realm: the federate Goths under Alaric and his suc­ cessors, who invaded Italy in 401 and 408, sacked Rome in 410, and later crossed into Gaul and Spain; a separate Gothic band com­ manded by Radagaisus which attacked Italy in 405 and was destroyed the next year by a Roman army under Stilicho in 406; and a horde of Vandals, Alans, and Sueves that crossed the Rhine in 406 to ravage first Gaul and then Spain. The failure of the western government to deal effectively with these attacks provoked, between 407 and 415, the usurpations referred to above. The depredations were the worst the west had suffered from outsiders in many decades. Prosper’s native Aquitaine suffered badly from the Vandals and their allies. He himself may have been forced to flee his homeland as a result. Yet when our chronicler wrote in 433, he saw fit to include surprisingly little information about the barbarians. For instance, Prosper had next to nothing to say about the Vandals who pillaged Gaul. He noted their crossing of the Rhine, in company with the Alans, in 406 (c. 1230), and in a marginal note at 409 said “The Vandals occupied Spain,” an entry as remarkable for its lack of precision as for its brevity. The Goths were of somewhat more interest to Prosper. He devoted no less than twelve entries to their peregrinations;83 he even included the names of their leaders, a courtesy not extended to the other peoples. But this attention is closely related to Prosper’s concern with the dynastic implications of this crisis. Where the Vandals and the others had inflicted great suffering on the provinces, the Goths had sacked Rome and shaken the state itself. Their actions, and theirs alone, had directly threatened the ruling Theodosian family. The Goths had raised up a puppet emperor, Attalus, who under the protection of his patrons evaded Honorius’s vengeance for several years; indeed, three of the entries that mention the Goths are concerned chiefly with the vicissitudes of Attalus’s career. A fourth outlines the dynastic scandal of the age: the marriage of Honorius’s sister Galla Placidia (mother of Valentinian III, Prosper’s own emperor in 433) to the Gothic King Athaulf. 84 That this marriage is *' Ibid., 1177 (in margin), 1218, 1222, 1228, 1238, 1240, 1246 (in margin), 1254, 1256, 1257, 1259, 1271. 1,4 Ibid., 1283, 1254, 1256 (Attalus); 1259 (Placidia). The version of c. 1259 that is found in mss. MY (which may represent the latest, revised form of the chronicle)does not mention Placidia’s marriage to Athaulf.

THE EDITION OF 433

91

mentioned only in passing, in recording Placidia’s more suitable second union with the patrician Constantius, can probably be attributed to discretion rather than indifference. Prosper’s discussion of barbarian activities between 401 and 418 shows that the chronicler thought them less significant than the actions of Roman leaders. The famous sack of Rome of 410 is described in a six-word sentence; the five-word description of Athaulfs entry into Gaul in 412 was originally a marginal note overshadowed by the two lines devoted to the usurper Maximus and the much longer entry devoted to the case of Bishop Heros’s deposition, both recorded under the same year.85 Whatever Prosper may have thought about the barbarian attacks when they were taking place, from the perspective of 433 they did not appear to be events that had transformed the world. They were largely relegated to the margins of his account, both figuratively and literally, because they were of marginal significance. Prosper credited the recovery of the empire and the restoration of legitimate government to Honorius’s famous general Constantius. We hear much about him in the years immediately preceding 421. According to Prosper, he first appeared as one of the two men responsible for the defeat of Constantine (c. 1243, A.D. 411); soon after that his not completely creditable involvement in the affair of Heros attested his growing power. It was to Constantius that Attalus, the last surviving tyrant, was turned over on his capture (c. 1256, A.D. 415). When the Goths finally sued for peace, ending the crisis, Constantius received a reward proper to a great hero, marriage into the imperial family (c. 1259, A.D. 416): Wallia, seeking peace from Honorius, returned Placidia, the daughter of the Emperor Theodosius whom the Goths had captured at Rome and whom Athaulf had as a wife; Constantius merited her hand in marriage. The chronicle shows Constantius making two further contributions to peace and stability. He provided an heir for the western branch of the Theodosian house, Valentinian (c. 1267, A.D. 418), and he made a permanent peace with the Goths, described in chapter 1271 (A.D. 419): “ Patrician Constantius confirmed the peace with Wallia by giving him as an abode [the province of] Aquitanica Secunda and certain cities of neighboring provinces.” The following year he 1,5 Ibid., 1245-1247.

PROSPER

received the ultimate accolade and was made co-emperor by Honorius (c. 1273, A.D. 420). ★ We have come nearly to the end of the first half of Prosper’s political account, and it is time to make an assessment of it. The record is so impersonal that we can hardly speak of his opinions. Yet the tendency is clear. The chronicle to A.D. 420 is tightly focussed on one aspect of the political life of the empire, the dynastic survival of the Theodosian line in the west. All other material is reduced to a minimum.86 Prosper presents his readers with a political success story with no ominous overtones. The ruling house of the west had indeed been shaken by civil war and disorder, but it had triumphed over its enemies nonetheless. There is no sense of passing a turning point in the life of the empire. ★ Following the consuls for the year 421, Prosper wrote three words: “ Emperor Constantius died. ” 87 Thereafter, both the political life of the western empire and Prosper’s approach to reporting it changed dramatically. Honorius, always easily dominated by his advisers, had as his closest heir the three-year-old child Valentinian. 88 The stage was set for a new round of turmoil, in which Honorius’s generals competed not for the emperorship, but for the predominant position Constantius had held before his elevation to the throne. The various episodes of this struggle dominate the chronicle from 422. At the same time, Prosper’s political account becomes more detailed and expressive of opinion, preserving unique information and an equally unique point of view on the period 422-433. The new tone is first adopted in chapter 1278 (A.D. 422), which, immediately following the report on Constantius’s death, describes an episode that has no previous parallel: At this time an army was sent to Spain against the Vandals, with Castinus as commander. By an unsuitable and unjust order, he excluded Boniface, a man quite well known for military skill, from “ There are only four eastern entries after 395: 1207 (the accession of Arcadius and Honorius); 1216 (the downfall of the eunuch Eutropius, recorded very briefly); 12341235 (the death of Arcadius and the accession of his son Theodosius II). There is only a single non-ecclesiastical, non-political entry: c. 1205 mentions the poet Claudian. “7 Ibid., 1276. ** Unless, of course, Honorius’s nephew Theodosius II pressed his claim.

mi

I Ι )Π IO N O I

433

93

partnership in his expedition. As a result that man [Boniface] judged him [Castinus] as dangerous to himself and unworthy to be followed — since he [Boniface] had found him to be quarrelsome and proud [d isc o rd e m su p e r b ie n te m q u e ] — and he [B] rushed quickly to Portus and thence to Africa. And this was the beginning of many troubles for the state. S tylistically, this is far from what we have seen before. Rather than presenting the essential facts with little or no elaboration, Prosper has created a drama in m iniature. T w o characters are opposed: the arrogant C astinus and the com petent general Boniface, w ho is shown as the innocent victim o f the oth er’s injustice. The result o f C astinus’s haughty and oppressive behavior is disaster for the state, the exact nature o f which is left unstated, as though it were too well known to need m entioning. The reference w ould not have been lost on Prosper’s readers. C astinu s’s exp ed ition had been a failure, and an opportunity to subdue the V andals w as forfeited. From this disaster came others, including civil war betw een Boniface in Africa and various rivals in Italy. As a result, in the three years prior to the writing o f the first ed ition , the V andals had crossed the sea and taken control o f m ost o f the A frican provinces. But this is left in the background, while the moral lesson is m ade explicit. A talented leader was alienated, an op portu nity lost, the state exposed to unnecessary trouble, because o f the d i s c o r d i a and s u p e r b i a m anifested by C astinus. In fact, the entire treatm ent is rem iniscent o f Prosper’s discussion o f the dep ositions o f John C hrysostom and H eros o f Arles, in which he deplored d i s c o r d i a , in the form o f dissension in the church and disunity o f its b ishops. Pride, to o , was a favorite target o f Prosper the ascetic theologian . Pride, the sin o f Lucifer and the nem esis o f every g ood m onk, w as what had led Pelagius to reject the gratuitous nature o f grace. The application o f a moral analysis to the troubles o f the state, the critique o f the arrogance and particularly the disunity o f its defenders, appear m ore than once in later parts o f the chronicle.89 Indeed, further discord and attendant disasters quickly follow ed. In 423 H on oriu s expelled from the palace his sister, the Augusta Placidia, and her children V alentinian and H onoria; they fled to their relatives in the east (c. 1280). H onorius died later that year, and as “9 On pride in Prosper's theology, see below, § 9. For further references to pride in the chronicle, Prosp. 1327, 1336, 1348, 1364. Pagan historians also commonly deplored pride. See Robin Seager, Ammianus Marcellinus: Seven Studies in His Thought and Ixtnguagc (Columbia, Mo., 1986), pp. 33, 41, 134.

PROSPER

there w as no T h eod osian heir in the w est to take his place, a certain John seized power. This cou p occurred, says Prosper, “ with the connivance, it w as judged, o f C astinus, w ho led th e a r m y a s m a g i s t e r m i l i t u m ” (c. 1282). T h eod osiu s II, senior em peror on H o n o riu s’s death, proved no m ore tolerant o f arm y-backed western usurpers than his grandfather T h eod osiu s I had been. H e soon decided to give his aunt Placidia and his young cousin V alentinian the m ilitary resources to reestablish them selves in Italy. V alentinian w as proclaim ed C aesar, and he and his m other “ were sent to retake the western em p ire.” Then Prosper adds an interesting detail: “ A t this tim e J o h n ’s defen ses were w eaker because he w as trying through force o f arms to take A frica, which was held by B on iface.” The illegitim ate and con tem p tib le90 regim e o f John fell quickly to the forces o f Placidia and V alentinian: Prosper noted their “ great good fortune” in overthrow ing the tyrant (c. 1288, A .D . 425). C astinus was exiled for his part in the usurpation. N o t all the supporters o f John received the sam e harsh treatm ent, how ever. One o f them , A etius, w ho had arrived tardily with an arm y o f H uns to fight for his m aster, w as p ardoned, because, in the w ords o f the chronicle, “ the H uns, w hom John had invited through [A etius], were through his efforts returned to their ow n cou n try.” T he year 425 ended happily for the state. By the decree o f T h eod o siu s, the west received V alentinian (still only seven years old) as its ow n A ugustus, and A etius justified the mercy show n him by ch asin g the G o th s from A rles, which in the con fusion o f civil war they had besieged .91 It m ust have seem ed to Prosper that the great go o d fortune o f 425 was quickly d issipated, for the rest o f the account to 433 is on e o f renewed d issension between the generals o f the w est. Felix, Castinus’s im m ediate successor and one o f the ch ief villains, is intro­ duced at 426 in con n ection with a horrible crim e, the m urder o f Bishop Patroclus o f Arles (c. 1292): Patroclus bishop of Arles was killed, cut up with many wounds, by a certain tribune named Barnabas. This crime was ascribed to the orders of the m a g is te r m ilitu m Felix, at whose instigation the deacon Titus, a holy man at Rome who distributed money to the poor, had also been killed.

TO See Prosp. 1285, where John is blamed for leaving unavenged the murder of Exuperantius, the praetorian prefect of Gaul. Ibid., 1288-1290.

ΤΗH EDITION OF 433

95

Felix, whose crimes against the church rate far more attention from our chronicler than any of the pious acts of Theodosius I or his descendants, is blamed in the following year, 427, for the outbreak of civil war (c. 1294): By the decision of Felix war in the public name was declared on Boniface, whose power and glory were growing in Africa, because Boniface refused to come to Italy. The war was prosecuted by Mavortius, Gallio, and Sanoex. By the treason of the last of these, Mavortius and Gallio were killed while they were besieging Boniface, and he himself [i.e. Sanoex] was soon killed by Boniface when his deceit was uncovered.

There may be a trace of sympathy for Boniface here; if his ambition is noted, certainly he looks better than his opponent Felix, who bears the responsibility for the war that, we may suspect, was only ostensibly in the public name. The efforts of both sides, however, served to damage the state. Prosper’s account continues: After that, the sea was made accessible to peoples who used not to know the use of ships, when they were called upon to help the rivals. The conduct of the war begun against Boniface was transferred to Count Segisvult.

This statement is immediately followed by another, brief but important (c. 1295, A.D. 427): “The Vandal people cross from Spain to Africa.” Chapters 1294 and 1295 are perhaps the most controversial portion of Prosper’s chronicle. They have been closely examined many times for clues about the Vandal invasion of Africa, for which Prosper is one of the few contemporary witnesses. Procopius’s somewhat muddled sixth-century account of the Vandal conquest states that it was Boniface who brought the Vandals to that country and who was thus responsible for its later loss.92 To some scholars, Prosper’s words are contemporary confirmation of Procopius’s assertion. They interpret him to mean that when Felix availed himself of the support of Segisvult — who was a Goth leading Goths — Boniface retaliated by allying himself with Geiseric, the Vandal king.93 Others, skeptical of Procopius’s story, deny that Prosper 92 Procopius’s account of the career of Boniface and its consequences for Roman Africa is found in the Bellum Vandalicum 1.3, ed. Haury (Leipzig, 1905) 1: 317-324. See esp. ibid., 1.3.22-26, Haury 1: 322. 92 E.A. Thompson, Review of De rebus gestis Bonifatii, com itis Africae et magistri m ilitum by J.L.M. de Lepper, Classical Review, 61 (1947): 130; Wilhelm Ensslin, Review, op. cit.. Gnomon, 18 (1942): 141-142; Vito A. Sirago, Galla Placidia e la trasform azione politica dell’occidente (Louvain, 1961), p. 278 and n. 1.

%

PROSPER

substantiates the later writer’s assertion .1'4 Such scholars base their opinion prim arily on P rosper’s statem ent that the rivals sum m oned peoples “ w ho used not to know the use o f sh ip s.” T h ose people could not be the V andals, they argue, because H ydatius records a V andalie raid on the Balearic Islands in 425. P rosper’s accoun t is interpreted to mean that B on iface’s allies m ust have been m em bers o f som e other barbarian group, probably the G oth s. C ertainly there were G oth s in B on iface’s arm y in 430, when the V andals besieged him in H ip p o .,s The argum ent used by scholars w ho deny that P rosper connected the V andal invasion with the war betw een Felix and B oniface has several w eaknesses. T he m ost ob viou s one is that it fails to explain convincingly w hy Prosper sp oke o f a plurality o f p eop les unaccus­ tom ed to navigation if both generals were allied with the G oths. A second w eakness is the tw o-part assum ption that P rosper w as aware o f the attack on the Balearics, and that this k now ledge m ade it im possible for him to refer to the V andals as a p eop le “ w ho used not to know the use o f sh ip s.” T hese things can n ot be taken for granted. W e cannot be certain that Prosper had ever heard o f the Balearic raid. H e had little interest in Spanish events, and the incident in question w as hardly n otoriou s — in fact, only H ydatius m entions it. But even if Prosper w as aware o f the raid, that k now ledge w ould scarcely have prevented him from including the V andals in a general way am ong the p eop les form erly ignorant o f seafaring. H e w as not concerned here with isolated raids on obscure islands, but with the fact that rival leaders, arm ed with governm ental authority and resources, were encouraging barbarian p eop les to cross the sea that had effectively lim ited their large-scale m ovem ents. H ere is the m ost serious objection to this argum ent. O bviously Prosper considered the opening o f the sea by Felix and B oniface as the m ost serious con sequ en ce o f their rivalry. If he m eant that the sea w as opened only to G othic federates, as has been suggested, it is difficult to see w hy he thought the incident im portant; our sources give us no hint that the G oth ic presence in Africa had any great influence on the fate o f the province. If, on the other hand, Prosper w as also referring to the crossing o f the V andals, the im portance o f the ep isod e is ob vious. 1,4 Ludwig Schmidt, Geschichte der Wandalen (Munich, 1942) pp. 55-59; J.L.M. de Lepper, De rebus gestis Bonifatii, comitis Africae et magistri militum (Tilburg, 1941), pp. 72-86; Frank M. Clover, “Geiseric the Statesman,” (Ph.D. diss., U. of Chicago, 1966), pp. 18-31; Stewart Irvin Oost, Galla Placidia Augusta (Chicago, 1968), p. 223 n. 58. On the ancient proclivity for blaming scapegoats for reverses, see ibid., pp. 197199. 95 Raid on the Balearics: Hyd. 86; Goths at Hippo: Schmidt, pp. 57-58, 58 n. 1.

im :

I D I I IO N

or

4>:

97

Indeed, P rosper’s text d oes allow us to connect the rather elliptical remarks o f c. 1294 with the unam bigu ou s record o f the Vandal invasion at c. 1295. T he latter is significantly placed two years too early — it actually took place in 429, not 427 as reported. Prosper is usually accurate in his con tinu ation; tw o-year errors are rare.96 Like other fifth-century chroniclers, how ever, he som etim es sacrificed correct ch ron o lo g y w hen he reported a series o f related events. His account o f the defeat o f C onstan tin e, the death o f C onstans, and the rise o f C on stan s’s replacem ent M axim us is a good case in point. All three events are described in c. 1243 and dated to 411. C onstantine’s dow nfall and death did indeed take place in that year; but G eron tiu s’s elevation o f M axim us occurred in 409 and his elim i­ nation o f C onstan s took place in 410 or perhaps in early 411. Prosper grouped these events together in one entry not because o f a close ch ron ological con n ectio n , but because all were consequences o f C on stan tin e’s usurpation. In another case, P lacidia’s abduction from R om e, her m arriage to A th au lf (414), her return to H on oriu s’s court (416), and her final marriage to C onstantius (January 1, 417) are all reported in a single sentence under the consuls o f 416 (c. 1259). Sim ilarly in the third edition Prosper described the C ouncils o f C onstan tin op le (448) and Ephesus (449) in one long entry at 448 (c. 1358). T hus on occasion he diverged from strict chronological order to group related events together, a procedure w hose utility can be appreciated by any reader or writer o f history. Prosper placed the V andal invasion im m ediately after his remarks about the op en in g o f the sea because it was in fact a consequence o f that op en in g, and, indeed, the consequence that gave its cause significance. T o con clud e that such was Prosper’s m eaning does not require that we accept P rocop iu s’s story in t o t o , nor even that we fully accept Prosper’s valuation o f events: his im plication that the sea was closed to barbarians before 427 is, at the very least, an exaggeration. His accoun t d oes give us reason to think that there may be more truth in P rocop iu s’s story o f the loss o f Africa than has som etim es been thought. T he contem porary Prosper, like Procopius a century later, believed that civil war in Africa gave the barbarians an opportunity to m ove into the M editerranean.

★ The single certain case of a mistake in dating greater than one year is his placement of Radagaisus’s invasion of Italy at 400 rather than at 405. His misdating of the Council of Chalcedon seems to be deliberate (see below, § 8). Also see n. 98 below. One may wonder if Prosper would have made such a blunder in dating the Vandal invasion when it took place only four years before he wrote.

PROSPER

Prosper evidently considered his entries at 427 to be a sufficient reminder of the current situation in Africa. He referred to it only once more, and obliquely, in his notice of Augustine’s death .97 The four remaining political entries in the first edition trace the activities of the generals. The first three, which are very brief, describe the rise of Aetius and the fall of Felix. At 428 (c. 1298), we read that Aetius recovered the left bank of the Rhine from the Franks. The next entry (c. 1300, A.D. 429) reports that “ Aetius was made magister militum when Felix was promoted to the rank of patrician. ” 98 The last, in 430 (c. 1303), shows the young general eliminating his superior in a coup: “Aetius killed Felix, his wife Padusia, and the deacon Grunitus because he knew in advance that they were planning to kill him.” Prosper’s report of Aetius’s involvement in these murders (which caused the death of a cleric) is very curious; he explained the general’s role, but the explanation would have been superfluous had Aetius’s name simply been omitted. One wonders what Prosper might have said if Aetius had not been ruling when he wrote. The last political entry is also the final entry, save for the listing of the consuls for 433, in the entire edition. It closes the story of rivalry between generals begun in 422 with a long account of Boniface’s death and Aetius’s acquisition of supreme power (c. 1310): Boniface, having accepted the rank of m a g is te r m ilitu m , came from Africa to Italy through Rome. He defeated Aetius, who resisted him in battle, and died from disease a few days later. Aetius had been living on his estates ever since laying aside his power, and there certain of his enemies tried to crush him with a sudden attack. He fled to the City and from there to Dalmatia, then went through Pannonia to reach the Huns. Using their friendship and aid, he obtained peace with the emperors and the enjoyment of his interrupted power.

This is one of the longest and most detailed of Prosper’s summaries of political affairs; but when examined closely, it strikes us, once again, as a rather eccentric abstract of a very complicated situation. 97 Prosp. 1304. 98 A. Demandt, in his article “ magister militum” (RE, Supp. 12, cols. 653-654) argues that Felix’s promotion to patrician took place in 425, when Hydatius records it (c. 84), rather than in 429 where Prosper mentions it (c. 1300). Demandt bases his opinion on the inscription of Felix’s consular diptych, which must be dated to 428. Although the diptych does show that Felix was a patrician before 429, it does not require us to accept Hydatius’s date for the promotion. Hydatius’s chronology for Italian affairs is not as trustworthy as has sometimes been supposed (see below, appendix). Also note that c. 1300 merely says that Felix was made a patrician before Aetius became magister militum in 429. No specific date is given for Felix’s patriciate. Even if Prosper meant to indicate that it took place in 429, we can only prove him to be one year off, not four.

THE EDITION OF 433

99

Prosper actually tells us less about the civil war of 432-433 than the much briefer Chronicle of 452, and omits details that Hydatius remembered thirty-five years later. One wonders, for instance, why Prosper attributed Boniface’s death to disease when other sources insist that he died from a battle wound, perhaps one inflicted by Aetius himself." More important details have been omitted or obscured. The Empress Placidia, a woman of great influence throughout this period of strife but neglected by Prosper throughout, is absent from the account of an affair in which she was a central actor — it was she who had called Boniface from Africa.100 Sebastian, Boniface’s son-in-law and briefly his successor as magister militum, is also unnamed.101 Prosper has once more reduced a complex political situation to a drama focussed on two individuals: Boniface, who gained power only to lose it within days, and Aetius, for whom being hunted into exile turned into a blessing in disguise. Was this turn of the wheel of fortune what Prosper wished to emphasize? Prosper was so forthright in condemning the follies of feuding generals in other parts of the chronicle that one suspects he could have said more about the rights and wrongs of this particular conflict. No doubt a salutary discretion constrained him from being too frank about this recent political upheaval. Nevertheless, there are hints that Prosper was not pleased with the victory of Aetius. Although Aetius is never directly criticized in the edition of 443, it is evident that Prosper was unenthusiastic about the new warlord of the west; had he wished to make Aetius a hero, the material was at hand. What strikes the modern reader, instead, is the number of rather discreditable incidents involving Aetius that found their way into the chronicle. The similarity between the ruling generalissimo and some of his disreputable colleagues is all too clear. What Prosper thought of Boniface is more difficult to discern. Boniface, whose reputation as a general was quite high among contemporaries, is the only western general whom Prosper directly praised.102 He is shown to be a competent military man, one who M Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Weit (Stuttgart, 1920-1), 6: 117; Oost, Galla Placidia Augusta, p. 233. 100 See below, § 7. 101 Oost, Galla Placidia Augusta, pp. 229-235; See below, § 6. 102 On Boniface’s contemporary reputation as a general, Olympiodorus frg. 40, 42 (FHG4: 66; trans, in C.D. Gordon, The Age o f Attila (Ann Arbor, 1966), pp. 44-46); cf. Procopius Bellum Vandalicum 1.3, Haury 1: 317-324), and Victor of Vita, 1.6 (MGH: AA, 9: 5-6).

ICK)

PROSPER

stood by the legitim ate dynasty in the tim e o f Joh n , and contributed to the victory o f Placidia and V alentinian. Perhaps m ore im portant are the things he did not d o . A lthou gh not com p letely free o f am bition and intrigue, he is the only general not im plicated in som e blatantly sham eful deed. B oniface, to o , w as d istinguished by an unusual religious history. A s w as know n to readers o f A u gu stin e’s published letters, B oniface had been a correspondent o f the bishop o f H ip p o .103 D uring the years 417 and 418, the general had con su lted A ugu stine ab out doctrine and his ow n salvation , eliciting from the bishop at one point guidance on how a soldier could serve Christ and win salvation . One o f A u gu stin e’s letters to B oniface, no. 189, con tains a com m entary on the right use o f m ilitary pow er that nicely com p lem en ts P rosper’s critique o f the generals o f his d ay:104 Think first of this, then, when you are arming for battle, that your strength, even of body, is a gift of God, for so you will not think of using the gift of God against God...Your will ought to hold fast to peace, with war as the result of necessity, that God may free you from the necessity and preserve you in peace... Be, then, a peacemaker even while you make war, that by your victory you may lead those whom you defeat to know the desirability of peace, for the Lord says: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of G od.’ But if B on iface’s spiritual inquiries had w on A u gu stin e’s respect in 418, he had lost it afterw ards. By 427 A ugu stine w as reproaching him , in letter 220, for m arrying an A rian and allow in g his daughter to be baptized by a heretical priest. A ugu stine sp oke at greater length about B on iface’s m isuse o f his m ilitary talents: he had once dissuaded B oniface from b ecom in g a m onk so that he m ight use his gifts for the com m on go o d . N ow B oniface w as neglecting the defense o f Africa to fight Felix. A ugu stine w as d isappointed to see a man w ho had on ce understood the im portance o f spiritual things throw ing them aside in the pursuit o f w ordly am bition . H e warned B oniface that he w as endangering his soul. Even if his cause was right, even if he had been unjustly treated by his rivals, his singlem inded struggle to gain p osition and pow er w as an occasion o f sin, because it involved both h im self and his follow ers in evil acts. T hus in 427 A ugustine saw him as em b odyin g the vices Prosper See Augustine, Ep. 185, 185a, 189, 220 (CSEL 52: 1-44, 131-137, 431-441). "M Ibid. 189.6 (CSEL 57: 135); trans, by Sr. Wilfrid Parsons, in St. Augustine, Letters, voi. 4, Fathers of the Church, v. 30, (New York, 1955), p. 269.

T U I·: T U I T I O N O l

4.T t

101

den oun ced in other m ilitary m en, though not in Boniface. One cannot be sure how well Prosper knew A ugustine’s correspondence, or the history o f his m aster’s dealings with Boniface, but the situation is m ade the m ore curious when one com pares Prosper’s c. 1294, which describes the war betw een Felix and B oniface, with A ugus­ tine’s letter 220. In both B oniface is shown as pursuing or attaining “ pow er and glory” (Prosper’s w ords are p o t e n t i a g l o r i a q u e ) . The chronicler’s d epiction o f B on iface’s role in the war with Felix is not dissim ilar to A u gu stin e’s, especially when one recalls that p o t e n t i a and g l o r i a cou ld con n ote u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l pow er and t h i r s t f o r glory. Prosper’s indulgent presentation o f Boniface remains unexplained. Perhaps B oniface retained som ething o f his old reputation as a pious m an, if not in P rosper’s m ind, then in that o f his expected audience; there are indications that B oniface, or som eone else on his behalf, deliberately cultivated this im age.105 Certainly it w ould be unwise to argue from the am biguous evidence o f the chronicle that Prosper was a partisan o f B oniface w ho was prevented only by prudence from declaring his allegiance. It is just as possible that Prosper used the figure o f B oniface, the best o f a bad lot, to em phasize the greater faults o f other m em bers o f the m ilitary establishm ent. Certainly Prosper w as not blind to B on iface’s ow n sins. The worldly am bition that A ugustine lam ented in B on iface’s later career is to be seen in the chronicle as w ell, even if it is not em phasized, and its unfortunate con sequ en ces are clearly spelled out. Prosper’s overall evaluation o f the political trends o f the past decade is quite clear. H e found much to criticize in recent leaders o f the em pire. Their failure to suppress disorder is in contrast with the accom plishm en ts o f R om an arms under earlier princes and par­ ticularly under C onstantius. The blam e for this state o f affairs is placed firmly on turbulent generals, their am bitions and internecine rivalries, w hich have dam aged both church and state. The overriding concern with dynastic legitim acy seen in the first half o f the account is transform ed in the second part to a preoccupation with the use and m isuse o f m ilitary power. T o our eyes — and perhaps, in later years. 1,15 There exists a fraudulent correspondence between Boniface and Augustine (ed. PL 33: 1093-1098) which shows Boniface as a dutiful follower of episcopal authority. Lepper, pp. 9-17, believed these letters were written by a contemporary soon after Augustine’s death to save Boniface's reputation among the orthodox Christians who had favored him in earlier days. Clover has argued that the letters are a sixth-century forgery comparable in its whimsicality to some sections of the Historia Augusta. See his "The Pseudo-Boniface and the Historia Augusta," Beiträge. Bonner Historia-AugustaCottoquium 1977-78. Antiquitas ser. 4, v. 14 (1980): 73-95.

PROSPER

102

e v e n to P r o s p e r s — th e m o st n o ta b le co n seq u en ce o f dissension a m o n g th e g e n e r a ls w a s th e failu re to d ea l w ith the V andals, who in 4 3 3 h e ld m o s t o f A frica a n d th rea ten ed C arthage itself. But in the first e d itio n th a t th rea t is left in the b a ck g ro u n d , w hile the focus is on th e d is s e n s io n itself. T h e b arb arian s rem ain m arginal, indeed fa c e le s s . O n e su sp e c ts P ro sp er felt that th ey co u ld be easily quelled by a str o n g a n d w o r th y arm . T h e r e is a fu rth er c o n tr a st b u ilt in to the ch ron icle as w ell. Prosper p rese n te d recen t d e v e lo p m e n ts in the church as a tale o f alm ost u n a llo y e d s u c c e ss, o f th e repulse o f heresy and the achievem ent, in th e R o m a n ch u rch at lea st, o f a m a rv elo u s unanim ity. In the political life o f R o m e d isse n sio n ru led , a n d th e end w as n ot so happy,

★ W e u n fo r tu n a te ly d o n o t k n o w w h o read the first ed ition o f Prosper’s c h r o n ic le . N o m a n u scrip ts o f th e w ork en d in g in 433 survive. This m a y be an in d ic a tio n th at it en jo y ed n o very w ide public. The m a teria l in it, h o w e v e r , w as in clu d ed in later ed ition s that proved m o re p o p u la r .

6. T h e ed itio n o f 445 T w e lv e y ea rs a fte r he first issu ed his ch ron icle. Prosper, now an e sta b lish e d resid en t o f th e E ternal C ity, returned to the writing o f h isto r y . M u ch h a d c h a n g e d sin ce 433. T h e R om an em pire had en tered a n e w era o f c o n flic t w ith th e barbarians, w inning som e v ic to r ie s b u t su sta in in g terrible lo sses. G eiseric, king o f the Vandals, w h o s e n a m e d o e s n o t even a p p ea r in the first ed ition , had been rev ea led a s an u n p reced en ted threat to both church and state. He n o w c o n tr o lle d C a rth a g e, an d w as p ersecu tin g A frican C atholics in a n e ffo r t t o e sta b lish A ria n ism in h is realm . T he w orsening relations b e tw e e n th e w estern g o v ern m en t and A ttila , n ow sole king o f the H u n s , p r o m ise d tro u b le to c o m e in E u r o p e .106 Y et th ere w ere sign s o f h o p e a s well. T he contrast drawn in 4 3 3 b etw een c o n fu s io n a n d d efeat in the p o litica l sphere and the success a n d p ro g ress v isib le in church affairs is a lso present here; if anything it is a little sh a r p e n e d . P r o sp e r ’s p o l i t i c a i a n d ecclesiastical accounts are ‘m o r e c lo s e ly related in th e se c o n d ed itio n . In discussing the 106 O tto M aenchen-H clfen, T h e W o r l d o f t h e H u n s (Berkeley, 1973),pp. 95-104, 107.

TUI: EDITION

or 445

103

twenty-five substantial entries that he added to his chronicle in 445, we will not try to separate the political and ecclesiastical notices as we did before. It is more useful to look at this further continuation as three interwoven accounts of the Matter of Gaul, the Matter of Africa, and the Matter of the Church under Pope Leo. i. Gaul As in the previous edition, the majority of entries in the 445 version of Prosper’s chronicle concern political or military events. A few of these are very brief; others are longer and more detailed, and often contain a moral lesson. As in his account of the years 422-433, Prosper chose to expatiate on some rather than others. Those discussed in most detail were not necessarily those of the greatest inherent political interest, at least to modern readers; rather they are events that lent themselves to a moral analysis. Prosper could be quite offhand about what we might consider great events. His first entry in the new edition, under the consuls of 435 — he recalled nothing worth mentioning in 433 or 434 — is a very short description of the cession of part of Africa (unspecified in the chronicle) to the Vandals. This was certainly an event with great consequences, but as it was rather overshadowed by those con­ sequences, Prosper was content to mention it as briefly as possible (c. 1321). Compare this with the next chapter, which is the first of a series concerning Aetius’s wars against the barbarians in Gaul, a series that stretches to 439. The events described here (A.D. 435, c. 1322) caught Prosper’s attention for reasons that we cannot quite reconstruct. The obscurities of the entry illustrate well the difficulties of interpreting Prosper: At the same time [as the treaty between Valentinian and the Vandals] Aetius crushed in battle Gundicharius, the king of the Burgundians living within Gaul, and gave him the peace he asked for. But he [Gundicharius] did not enjoy that peace long, since the Huns utterly destroyed him and his people.

The Chronicler of 452 recorded this incident as well but gave Aetius the credit for “the destruction of almost the entire [Burgundian] people with their king.” 107And indeed the later writer is undoubtedly correct, for the Huns were not operating independently in Gaul in the 1117 Chron. 452 118.

104

PROSPER

430s, but only as Aetius’s federates. This raises a question: why did Prosper blame the destruction of the Burgundians on the Huns in this manner? Perhaps it is because the savagery of the Huns, alluded to by him a few years later, was a subject of concern in 445: Aetius’s alliance with the Huns had lapsed by then, and war between Attila and the western empire was in the air. It should be noted that there is not the slightest exultation over the fate of the Burgundians. Prosper generally showed no hostility to the barbarians as such; he preferred mutually advantageous peace to war. In this case, rather than praising Aetius’s victory, Prosper seems to be hinting at a breach of faith on his part. It is possible, however, that even this was secondary to the chronicler. Perhaps he was merely struck by an example of the uncertainty of earthly peace. The next year a new war broke out in Gaul when the Goths broke the established treaty, seized a number of cities and besieged Narbonne. But the city was saved by the quick action of Count Litorius (c. 1324): ...When [Narbonne] had long suffered from siege and famine, it was freed from both dangers by Count Litorius, because by having each horseman carry two measures of wheat he vigorously turned the enemy to flight and filled the city with grain.

At first sight this appears to be merely the tribute of a former Gaul to the clever military stratagem that saved a major city in his native land, and certainly Prosper must have been gratified. But the full significance of the entry does not emerge until one has read further, to see what Prosper said about the rest of the war. In 437 he concentrated on other matters, and reported only that “ War is waged against the Goths with the help of the Huns (c. 1326).” In the single entry for 438 (c. 1333), a very uneventful year by Prosper’s reckoning, he was content to remark that “ Certain deeds prosper against the Goths.” He turned his reader’s attention fully on the Gothic war only to describe the dramatic downfall of Litorius. The passage (c. 1335, A.D. 439) reads in full: Litorius, who was second-in-command to the patrician Aetius and was also assisted by the Huns, was trying to surpass Aetius in fame. Putting his faith in the responses of haruspices and the significations of demons, he imprudently engaged in battle with the Goths. He made known how much that band which perished with him could have accomplished if he had preferred to use better counsel than his own temerity, since he inflicted so much slaughter on the enemy that if he had not fallen captive while fighting thoughtlessly, it would have been

T H E E D IT IO N O F 445

105

difficult to know to which side to ascribe victory. The defeat of Litorius was a famous incident in its own time, and Prosper was not alone in seeing its significance as primarily moral. Salvian, who wrote De gubernatione Dei soon after the event, found it a perfect illustration of his thesis that Roman misfortunes were the result of divine displeasure. More specifically, it was an example of how the Romans steadfastly refused to acknowledge God’s help in times of trouble, and instead believed in the efficacy of their own powers. The Goths and Vandals, he said, did not make that error: Our misfortune in the last war proved this. When the Goths feared, we presumed to put our hope in the Huns; they in God. When they sought peace, we refused them peace. They sent [Roman] bishops as intermediaries and we turned them away. They honored God even in foreign priests; we have contempt for Him even in our own. Thus “to them exaltation was given for humiliation; to us dejection for elation,” as Litorius learned when he entered Toulouse as a captive the day he thought to enter as victor. “[Litorius] presumed foreknowledge and wisdom, and incurred the greatest disgrace for his rashness.” In this he was less wise than the Gothic king Theodoric, who according to Salvian prepared for battle by praying in sackcloth.108 The comparison of Salvian’s remarks with chapter 1335 is revealing. Although the two analyses differ in detail, both are moral interpretation that see Litorius’s defeat as a case of pride going before a fall. That Prosper, unlike Salvian, has given his reader proof of Litorius’s very real military skill only dramatizes the chronicler’s presentation of the general’s folly. The important difference between the two writers is that Prosper did not make the defeat an example of barbarian virtue and use it as a stick with which to beat his Roman fellow-Christians. The battle is shown not as a Gothic victory, but as God’s judgement on one sinful man. The lesson Prosper wished to draw emerges later. After referring mysteriously to an otherwise-unknown Vitericus as a man “faithful to our empire and famous for many war-like deeds (c. 1337, A.D. 439), ” 109 he recorded the war’s end with this brief statement: “ Peace l,w De gubernatione Dei 7.9, IO(MGH: AA, I: 90-91). The translation here is from Salvian, The Writings oj Salvian the Presbyter, trans, by Jeremiah O’Sullivan, The Fathers of the Church, v. 3 (New York, 1947), pp. 196-199. Cf. also Hyd. 116 for a different interpretation of Litorius’s defeat. The name is a Gothic one. For its use by a fourth-century chieftain, see PLRE, 1: 965, s.v. “Viderichus". The notice concerning Vitericus may be an interpolation, as it

PROSPER

was made with the Goths when, after the deplorable test of ambiguous battle, they begged for it more humbly than ever before.” Considering what has gone before, this can scarcely be seen as the celebration of a great Roman victory. Rather, the situation of the Goths is not unlike that of Litorius. They too committed their fortunes unwisely to the test of battle, and found similar cause to regret it. Once again, Prosper was lacking in zeal for the destruction of the barbarians. We sense rather his distaste for war. Prosper’s discussion of the Gothic war is such a perfect example of his very individual approach to his task as a chronicler of current events that it is worth a final look. His account lacks the circum­ stantial details that modern students of fifth-century politics and warfare would like to have. He did not tell us where, for instance, the battle between Litorius and the Goths took place, nor why the Goths begged for peace, nor what terms they were required to accept. He preferred to discuss at length a few significant aspects of the warand to dispose of the rest as quickly as possible. The material he chose to include reveals his didactic purpose. He was telling his readers not so much about the war as what they should think of it. One cannot exclude the possibility that Prosper was cautiously criticizing Litorius and through him Aetius for their conduct of the war; once again, as in the case of Castinus’s dealings with Boniface, arrogance and stupidity had resulted in terrible waste. But other things come through much more strongly: the foolishness of the Goths in provoking the war, the rashness and impiety of the ambitious Litorius. These episodes stand on their own as moral exempia, and are far more important than the more mundane details of the conflict. ii. Africa

Prosper’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for a largely successful war in Gaul is explained by the way he connected it with the greatest disaster of the period, the Vandal sack of Carthage, which also took place in 439. Immediately after reporting the peace treaty with the Goths, he turned his attention to Africa (c. 1339): “ While Aetius was intent on the matters which were being settled in Gaul, Geiseric [the Vandal exists only in mss.AsluO in the A recension (see Mommsen’s opinion CM, 1: 379-380). On the other hand, it may be an authentic note omitted from a later, revised edition (see above, § 2). If indeed Prosper wrote the entry, it is interesting that he praised an obscure, possibly Gothic, general in connection with the Gothic war, rather than Aetius, the mastermind behind Roman policy.

THE EDITION OF 445

107

king]...seized Carthage.” Prosper states that no hostility was feared from this direction, but he himself makes the reader wonder how such an error had been made. On his testimony Geiseric had already shown himself to be an evil man well before the sack of 439. As we have seen. Prosper said very little about the Vandal settlement in Africa. But Geiseric, first mentioned in this edition, is quickly introduced and shown persecuting the Africans in an effort to convert them to Arianism. Two long entries at 437 give full coverage to Geiseric’s crimes. The first (c. 1327) tells of persecution of the clergy: In Africa, Geiseric, king of the Vandals, wishing to subvert the Catholic faith with the Arian impiety within the borders of his dwelling-place, persecuted some of our bishops, of whom Possidius [biographer of Augustine], Novatus, and Severianus were the most outstanding, to such an extent that he deprived them of the use of their basilicas and even expelled them from the cities when their constancy would yield nothing to the terrors of the very proud king [superbissimi

regis]. Chapter 1329 portrays the conflict between constancy and pride in even more dramatic fashion. Geiseric decided that four of his trustiest counsellors — Spaniards named Arcadius, Paschasius, Probus, and Eutychian — must be bound to him more firmly. He resolved to force them to become Arians. Their refusal “excited the barbarian to a most furious rage [excitato in rabidissimam iram barbaro]·'' the counsellors were first proscribed, then tortured, and finally fell “marvelously in martyrdom.” Nor was that the end of it. Paulillus, the younger brother of Eutychian and Paschasius, formerly a favorite of the king, was beaten and reduced to lowest servitude when he, too, refused to convert. He was not killed, however, “ lest even [a boy of] such youth should be able to boast of having conquered the savagery of the impious.” The most interesting aspect of these two stories is the language Prosper used to condemn Geiseric. He is both “savage” and a “barbarian,” terms that have been applied to no one else to this point, not even rebellious genres like the Goths. Prosper was to be equally sparing with these words in the future. Besides Geiseric, only the Huns merited such denunciation. In one respect, however, Geiseric, the first non-Roman to evince any personality in the chronicle, is much like the Roman villains we have seen before. A key vice in his nature is superbia. Two years later, in 439, the war in Gaul gave this proud king the

108

PROSPER

opportunity to make a surprise attack on the chief city of Africa. Prosper’s description of the sack (c. 1339) is a catalogue of crimes. We are told how the king tortured the richer citizens, confiscated all the city’s riches, and despoiled the churches, converting them into housing for his people. In short, “he was savage to every order of the captive population, but chiefly hostile to the nobles and the religious, so that it could not be discerned whether he made war on God or man.” The exceptional significance of this event is indicated by Prosper’s concluding sentence: “Carthage underwent this captivity 585 years after it became Roman.” Although it is puzzling at first glance, the meaning of this remark and the purpose behind its inclusion are clarified by reference to other late Roman historians. Prosper’s predecessors Jerome and Orosius, as well as Marcellinus almost a century later, used this kind of summation to mark a turning point in history, especially the fall of a great monarchy.1101Prosper inserted the tally of 585 years here for the same reason. The loss of Carthage was no ordinary setback. As Rome had once taken Carthage and with it the dominion of Africa, now she had lost both to another power. Geiseric’s coup was a major catastrophe affecting the integrity of the Roman world.1" Geiseric followed up the sack of Carthage with seaborne attacks on other Roman provinces, particularly Sicily. In the chronicle these raids serve only as background for a curious incident concerning Sebastian, the son-in-law of Boniface. In 432 Sebastian had briefly been magister militum after Boniface’s death, and had been forced to go into exile with his supporters when Aetius had returned to power the following year. Prosper had not mentioned Sebastian in his first edition, but introduced him here without preliminary. According to Prosper, Geiseric broke off his attack on Sicily because he heard that Sebastian was crossing from Spain to Africa (c. 1342, A.D. 440): 110 Jerome’s chronicle notes the duration of a monarchy in a similar manner at the downfall of the Argive (ab Abr. 704), Sicyonian (ab Abr. 888), and Assyrian realms (ab A b r. 1197); likewise at the expulsion of the Roman kings (ab A b r. 1505). The fall of Troy and that of Jerusalem (to the Romans) are the occasions for a summation of ail years from the beginning of the chronicle. Orosius similarly discussed the duration of Babylon and Rome (Hist. 2.3, CSEL 5; 85-86)and of Carthage (4.23, CSEL 5:272-274) as political powers. Marcellinus, s.a. 476.2 (CM, 2: 91) made a special point of telling his readers that Romulus Augustulus’s deposition occurred in the 422nd year after Augustus first assumed the emperorship in the 709th year A.U.C. S u b anno 534 (CM, 2: 103-104) he dated the recovery of Carthage by Justinian to the ninety-sixth year after its fall. 111 There is a similar evaluation of the fall of Carthage in Chron. 452 129. See below, chapter IV, § 7.

THE EDITION OF 445

109

...[Geiseric] thought it would be most dangerous to him and his people if a man experienced in warfare should approach Carthage to retake it. But in fact that man [Sebastian], wishing to appear a friend rather than an enemy, found everything in the barbarian mind different from what he had hoped, and that hope was to him the cause of great calamity and a most unhappy death.

What might be irretrievably obscure is fortunately illuminated by other sources. Victor of Vita informs us that Sebastian entered Geiseric’s service and was eventually killed by the Vandal king as a threat to his own power.112 We can be less certain what Prosper meant to convey by his own presentation of the facts. The entry may be an implied criticism of Roman policy towards “the barbarian.” By 445 both imperial governments had given up trying to dislodge the Vandals from their recent gains. Valentinian had signed a treaty with a man who had twice been shown as untrustworthy. Prosper, for religious reasons more hostile than most to the Vandal king, seems to have viewed this inglorious policy as an invitation to trouble, as dangerous for the state as it had been for Sebastian personally. Certainly he was dissatisfied with the military response to date. Chapters 1344 and 1346 depict the failure of a dilatory eastern expedition of 441 to come to grips with the Vandals. Aetius’s inaction is not so directly criticized. But was not Prosper’s backhanded praise of Sebastian, Aetius’s old rival, a subtle jab at the western warlord?113 Immediately after Theodosius removed his forces from Sicily, Valentinian’s government made peace with Geiseric, and Africa was redivided between the two rulers (c. 1347 A.D. 442). The aftermath of his victory revealed once more the character of the Vandal king (c. 1348, A.D. 442): The success o f his affairs made Geiseric haughty [s u p e r b ie n s ] towards even his own people, so certain o f his chief men conspired against him. But the attempt was detected and they were tortured with many punishments and killed by him. And when the same thing appeared about to be attempted by others, death came to so many through the king’s suspicion that he lost more men through his anxiety [cu ra] than if he had been overcome in battle.

With this portrayal of a proud tyrant, the discussion of Vandal 112 Victor of Vita, 1.6 (MGH: AA, 3: 5-6); also, more briefly, Hyd. 144. 115 J.R. Moss, “The Effects of the Policies of Aetius on the History of Western Europe,” Historia, 72 (1973): 711-731. Moss has suggested that Aetius’s policies in Gaul sacrificed the interests o f Italy and Africa. Prosper’s coverage of the Gallic war may reflect Roman resentment of Aetius.

no

PROSPER

activities in Africa comes to an end.114 The emphasis given to African affairs throughout the edition of 445 demonstrates that the problem posed by Geiseric and his activities was very much on Prosper’s mind. A remarkable feature of his account is that it is cast entirely in personal terms. It is not the Vandals who are persecutors, or are dangerous militarily, it is Geiseric, who uses his power as their king to pursue evil ends. The chronicler’s strong condemnation of a persecuting heretic is pre­ dictable, given his intense interest in matters of doctrine, but it nevertheless illuminates several other aspects of his approach. His discussion of Geiseric’s Arianism is the only mention of Arianism in the entire chronicle. There is no hint that the Goths or any other people were also Arians. This suggests that Prosper, despite his concern for orthodoxy among the Romans, was not too disturbed by heresy among the barbarians unless it affected the Roman popu­ lation. Likewise his entirely moderate language in regard to nonRoman gentes (always excepting the Huns) seems to show a rather tolerant attitude to their political presence in the Roman world. Prosper manifested a traditional Roman desire for the barbarians to keep their place and behave themselves, but he was far from being a barbarophobe. iii. The Church under Pope Leo

The third major subject of interest to Prosper in 445 was the state of the Roman church. Where much of the secular news was grim, developments at Rome itself were of a sort to inspire his enthusiasm. During this decade the bishops of Rome continued to exercise what Prosper considered their traditional role in the struggle against heresy, and with dramatic results. Furthermore, in Leo the Great the church had a man of unusual holiness and remarkable accomplish­ ments. In the chronicle Leo is not only a worthy champion of orthodoxy, but shows an unprecedented talent for positively influ­ encing secular politics as well. Leo first appears in Prosper’s account during the reign of his predecessor Sixtus. The occasion was an attempt by Julian of Eclanum to be reinstated in his old bishopric and received into the communion of the church. Julian was, in Prosper’s words, “the most boastful assertor of the Pelagian error” and known for his war of pamphlets with Augustine during the latter’s dying days. Prosper N See below, following n. 120.

THE EDI TION OE 445

111

and Leo both considered the .nan a cunning and irredeemable heretic, and Leo (perhaps with Prosper’s support)115 urged Sixtus to deny Julian’s request [c. 1336; A.D. 439]: ...Pope Sixtus, with deacon Leo’s encouragement, ...permitted no opening to these pestiferous attempts, and thus made all Catholics rejoice over the rejection o f the deceitful beast, just as when the apostolic sword first decapitated the proudest of heresies [su p er­ b issim a m h e r e s im ].

As elsewhere, pride is the enemy; the apostolic sword is capable of destroying it. In 440, Sixtus died, and Leo was elected to replace him. A special mission had taken Leo away from Rome, but the sometimes turbulent city was content to wait for his return. Prosper’s account of the election (c. 1341, A.D. 440) turns all the circumstances of Leo’s accession to the credit of the new pope: When Bishop Sixtus died, the Roman church was without a bishop for more than forty days, awaiting with marvelous peace and patience the presence o f deacon Leo, whom the restoration of friendship between Aetius and Albinus detained in Gaul. It was as if he should be kept away so long so that the merits of the elect and the judgement of the electing should be approved. Therefore deacon Leo, summoned by a public legation and presented to a rejoicing native city, was ordained the forty-third bishop of the Roman church.

In some ways the most interesting part of this entry is the laconic reference to the cause of Leo’s mission. At a time when the empire had just lost Carthage and was about to be attacked by Geiseric’s fleets, Aetius and another prominent general, Albinus,116 were quarrelling, and no more suitable person could be found to settle the matter than a deacon of the Roman church. This reference to Leo’s diplomatic role is surely not a casual insertion. Prosper was showing his reader that the man who can inspire “ marvelous peace and patience” in his flock could do the same for the dangerously disunited defenders of the state. This is a presage (though of course not a conscious one) of Leo’s even more important missions of 452 and 455. Prosper said more about Leo’s leadership under 442. Once again Leo’s salutary influence was contrasted with the defects of secular leadership; but as the leader in this case was Geiseric, the contrast See Photius Bibliotheca 54, ed. Henry (Paris, 1959-74), I: 44. and noie 10above. On Albinus, sec Secck, v. v. “Caeonius” (39), RE 3, Pi. 2: cols. 1865-1866. and .1. Sundwall. Weströmische Studien (Berlin, 1915). pp. 45-46 (no. 14).

112

PROS

was the stronger. Having just shown the reader how the pride of i Vandal king aroused the opposition o f his nobles, and how 1 anxiety (cv/ra) about conspiracy resulted in great slaughter, Prosp now revealed a holier solicitude (likewise cura) in action. Chapt 1350 describes how Leo hunted down the Manichaeans in Rom exposed and condemned their dogmas to the world, and eve conducted a great book-burning. “[Leo’s] solicitude,” Prospe remarked, “divinely inspired in the holy man [sancto]...profited no only the city of Rome but even the whole world,” since th< confessions obtained revealed Manichaean teachers and clerg} throughout the empire, “and many bishops o f the eastern parts imitated the industry of the apostolic leader [rector] . ” " 7 As in the first edition, we are shown a pope setting the example for the world’s churches, exerting influence far beyond the city, and benefitting the whole world. But Prosper’s language is much more emphatic than before. Like barbarus and saevus, sanctus is a word the chronicler used infrequently.” 8Its presence here sets Leo apart from other churchmen, as does the statement that his actions were divinely inspired. Prosper endorsed Leo as a man with no real peers in the church or the secular world, a man whose influence and power were uniquely salutary. The final ecclesiastical entry (c. 1352) in the edition of 445 is a curiously technical one concerning the date o f Easter 444- “In this year Easter was celebrated on the twenty-third of April, nor was this an error, because the passion was the twenty-first of the month ” The obscurity here results from Prosper’s efforts to explain the results of a dispute on the subject without referring to the dispute itself. The date of Easter in that year had been a matter of debate between Rome, which considered its own method of calculation to have the authority of St. Peter, and the eastern churches, which preferred the Al 1andrian reckoning. Roman custom forbade that Easter should fall after April 21, which occasionally happened in Alexandria Each time there was a conflict of dates in the fifth century the R o m a n church tried to persuade the easterners to followits lead’ but without success. In 444, Leo was persuaded to accept the eastern dat ause Good Friday fell within the Roman limit. Thus Prosper’s en try ^1 ' is an 117 Chapter 1348, describing Geiseric's massacre o f his noble. , .......-II is rU a long ' - in .·_ Prosper’s Π------- ·- originai mss. _may note that weil L-----ha ve paraiie/éd cha meV'i °n,g marginai mar8,na· well as thematically. f '-«Ophysmally as n* It is o th e r w is e used to consecrate clergymen who suffer uniust ner martyrdom, in th e ca se s o f J o h n Chrysostom (c. 1220), Heros (c 1247) « n a n f100 or bishop of C o n s ta n tin o p le in th e tim e o f Eutyches (c. 1358). A 0 i' lav,an>

E D IT IO N O F 445

ILI

exp anation and a justification of Leo’s action. He did not allow this ack in papal policy to cast a shadow on the end of his account (c apter 1352 is the penultimate entry), for he concluded it with the statement that “for the sake o f reverence the natalis urbis [the trthday of Rome, celebrated on April 21J passed without circuses.” his occurrence was surely of satisfaction to the pious, and Prosper °und it worthy of notice.119 It was certainly better news than that conveyed by the last entry, which records the murder of the Hun king Bleda by his brother and co-king Attila. The increase in Attila’s power thus effected posed, even as Prosper wrote, a serious new threat to the security of the western empire.120 ★ Pros per’.s second edition preserves much unique and valuable information. The chronicle tells us the circumstances of Litorius’s victory at Narbonne and intriguing details of his defeat at Toulouse. It is our only source for the rivalry o f Albinus and Aetiusand the role °f Leo in calming it. Similarly it throws an interesting light on Geiseric’s internal policies. But the continuation to 445 is more remarkable not for the raw information it provides us, but for the way that information is presented. The general view of the political and military situation revealed fere is not sanguine. The successful conclusion of the war in Gaul, a war equally noteworthy for a great Roman disaster, was over­ shadowed by the rise o f an impious tyrant in Africa who had not only seized Carthage but attacked the Catholic church in that country. That developments in his native Gaul seemed less crucial to Prosper than those in Africa may at first seem odd. Two explanations suggest themselves. The first is the obvious one, that Geiseric was a direct threat to the orthodoxy o f his Roman subjects, whereas the Goths in 445 were not. The second is that Geiseric also threatened the material interests of the city of Rome, Prosper’s current residence. Prosper clearly if subtly showed his dissatisfaction with the empire’s handling of Geiseric. He portrayed the Vandal king as a treacherous man who had been trusted too freely in the past. He hinted that “a man experienced in warfare” — a capable general— might be able (or perhaps, should have been able) to dislodge C a s p a r , G eschichte der P apsttum s, 1:458-461. '2' See η. 106 above.

114

PROSPER

Geiseric from Carthage. He directly criticized the unsuccessful Eastern expedition against the Vandals for the delay that led to its failure. There is no criticism of Aetius’s lack of effort against Geiseric, and it may be unrealistic to look for it. Yet Prosper’s readers may have been expected to read between the lines. A review of what the chronicler said about the de facto ruler of the West reveals the same lack of enthusiasm that was present in the edition of 433. Certainly anyone wishing to praise Aetius and his policies could have found material that would reflect well on him — the account of the Chronicle of 452 for this period provides an excellent example.121But Prosper said very little about Aetius, and little of that was unequivocally good. True, Aetius was the tamer of the Burgundians; but he got surprisingly little credit for the defeat of the Goths. Rather, he was the man who was intent on Gaul while Geiseric took Carthage, and the one who was feuding with Albinus when Geiseric was preparing his expedition against Sicily. Prosper may or may not have been a critic of Aetius personally. His distaste for immoral and useless military men is clear. Powerful worldly men continued to provide him with examples of pride, destructive ambition, injustice, impiety, and a foolhardy lack of prudence. Roman generals shared these vices with the “ barbarian” king of the Vandals. There was little to choose between a man such as Litorius and Geiseric himself. In crucial ways, they were all too much alike.122 Prosper did not, however, lack good examples. There were heroes in his account — the bishops of Africa and the four Spaniards who, despite their longstanding support for Geiseric’s rule, were un­ yielding to the king’s demands for their apostasy. There were also effective Roman leaders — the bishops of the City, especially Leo, whose divinely inspired solicitude reached out to Catholics through­ out the world. The contrast between unworthy leaders in the secular sphere and the effective leadership exercised by the heads of the church was present in Prosper’s edition of 433. But it is drawn more forcefully in the second edition. Behind Prosper’s critique of policy, there is a critique of morality similar to that found in Salvian. Like Salvian, 121 See below, chapter IV, §§ 6-7. '-’2 See Scager, pp. 67-68, 131-138 for Ammianus's alarm when Roman leaders, whom he saw as champions of civilized order, demonstrated the excess typical of barbarians.

T ill·: E D I T I O N O F 4 5!

115

Prosper showed his readers that lasting success could come only from God. ★ If we are uncertain about the circulation of the earlier edition of the chronicle, the manuscript evidence allows us to be far more definite in regard to the edition of 445. A great number of copies attests its popularity. The fact that it was quickly continued by other hands shows us that some of this popularity was immediate. Prosper’s second edition served as the basis for a Roman continuator or continuators who independently recorded the ecclesiastical and secular conflicts of the next decade. Perhaps more interesting is the fact that the work soon found its way into Vandal Africa where it was continued by at least two other writers. Indeed, Prosper’s chronicle, both in this version and in later editions, provided African Catholics with a definitive short account of the Vandal conquest, one that was not only continued but reworked and epitomated several times in later years. The embattled African church thus adopted the historical framework devised in Rome by a Gallic theologian who, like them, saw persecution by heretics as the worst fate that could afflict the Roman people.123

7. The Edition of 451 The incipit of Parisian ms. lat. 4871 demonstrates, as Mommsen showed, that Prosper reissued his chronicle in the year 451. The manuscript ends with c. 516(A.D. 94), so we cannot be certain where the edition ended or what it included.124 But the edition can be reconstructed. If Prosper followed the practice of his previous editions, that of 451 would have ended with a bare notice of the consuls for the year of publication, and included events only for the years 446^150. Looking at the chronicler’s account for those years, we find that it consists of three substantial entries that together form '-n liiere survive two African continuations of Prosper’s edition of 445. The first, which takes the account to A.D. 455, was edited by Mommsen in CM, 1:486-487. Tilesecond, attached to an anonymous Roman account covering the years 446-451, reaches to 457 (ed. in CM, 1: 488-490). An African epitome of uncertain date is found in a Madrid ms. (ed. in CM, 1: 493-497). A sixth-century African author named Liberatus refers to an epitoma chronicorum of an otherwise unknown l.ucentius, which on Liberatus’s own showing contained material from Prosper’s chronicle concerning the year 428 (CM, I: 343; PL 68: 971). 124 CM, I: 345-347.

116

PROSPER

a coherent tale: that of the sudden rise of the Eutychian heresy and its equally sudden defeat at the hands of the orthodox, led by Pope Leo. The thematic unity of the chronicle in this section confirms the evidence of ms. lat. 4871. Prosper, who according to Gennadius was intimately involved in the struggle against Eutyches, appears to have issued a special edition of his chronicle to publicize the latest of Rome’s successful battles against incorrect belief. The edition of 451 apparently contained no events for the years 445-447. The first entry was, if we can trust our manuscripts, chapter 1358 at A.D. 448. It is an exceptionally long notice by Prosperian standards, and describes the entire course of the controversy up to the Second Council of Ephesus (which actually took place in 449). The entry begins with a brief explanation of the heresy, which according to Prosper consisted of the belief that Christ did not share in the human nature of his mother, but was only apparently human; by nature He was the Word of God. This theological proposition originated with Eutyches, described as “a certain priest who presided at a very famous monastery in Constantinople.’’ Flavian, his bishop, condemned the heresy at a council held in the eastern capital (A.D. 448), but Eutyches was unwilling to be corrected: “ Relying on royal friendship and the favor of courtiers, he demanded that he be heard by a universal synod.” With the agreement of the emperor Theo­ dosius II, the council was convened at Ephesus, and with the cooperation of Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria, who presided, Eutyches was absolved and Flavian condemned. But the papal legates at the council objected, and made a courageous resistance: This happened over the protests of Hilarus, a deacon of the Roman church, who was there for holy pope Leo, having been sent with Bishop Julian of Pozzuoli from the apostolic see. For when all the bishops in council had been compelled to give consent to this heresy by force and fear of the counts and soldiers whom the emperor had given to Dioscorus, the aforesaid deacon, standing firm in great peril of his life, spoke against it, although on this account they were eager for his destruction [cum in eius propter hoc perniciem saeviretur]. He secretly left there... so that he could disclose to the aforesaid pope and the rest of the Italian bishops how the Catholicfaith had been violated there. Prosper’s characterization of Second Ephesus as a savage pro­ ceeding reflects the outrage of the Roman church, which was dismayed to find itself betrayed by the bishop of Alexandria. Yet Second Ephesus was scarcely more irregular than the First.125 What 125 Jedin and Dolan, 2: 103-107.

117

was different was that Rome and Alexandria had stood together in 431 to depose Nestorius; this time the court of Constantinople and the foremost patriarch in the east were aligned against the Roman see. Thus Prosper painted the affair in the blackest colors, and cast Rome’s opponents in the role of persecutors. He was aided in this by the fact, duly noted at the end of chapter 1358, that Flavian had died under arrest while being led into exile: in Prosper’s words, he “went to Christ in a glorious end.” Prosper skipped directly from the death of Flavian to the denouement, recorded under 450. Eutyches’s powerful patrons were suddenly removed: Theodosius died and his eunuch praepositus Chrysaphius, who was a godson of Eutyches and his chief supporter at court, was deposed and killed. The chronicler’s description of this turn of affairs (c. 1361) is surprisingly offhand. There is no gloating over the fallen emperor, and Chrysaphius is merely accused of misusing the friendship of the prince.126 The reader is hurried along to consider the accession of Theodosius’s orthodox successor, Marcian: “Marcian, a most eminent man and indispensable [per­ necessarius■] to both the state and the church, took power by the consent of the whole army.” The final entry shows the new emperor, under the guidance of Leo, putting right what had been done wrong at Ephesus (c. 1362): By Marcian’s edict, following the authority of the apostolic see, the synod of Ephesus was condemned, and it was decided to celebrate an episcopal council at Chalcedon so that pardon should heal the correct [i.e., Eutyches’s banished opponents] and those persevering in heresy should be expelled.

Prosper probably ended his edition of 451 here, with the new heresy tidily disposed of. His account, despite the melodramatic picture ofEphesus, is didactic in intention. The error of Eutyches, the heroism of Flavian, the illegitimacy of Second Ephesus, the loyalty of the new emperor to the teachings of the Roman pontiff were all spelled out. A great deal of other material was simply omitted. Prosper’s narrowness of focus is revealed by comparing his text with those of other contemporaries. The most interesting of these is one of his earliest continuators, an anonymous Roman who about 451 attached his own account of the ecclesiastical strife to Prosper’s edition of 445.127 The Roman continuator’s description of events is l2'’ On Chrysaphius, see Jones, I: 180, 215-216, 218. 122 The Continuatio codicum Ovetensis et Reichenaviensis, in CM, 1: 488-490. The continuation exists in two slightly different versions, a longer one in Mommsen’s ms.

IIX

PROSPER

quite concise, and devoid of literary elaboration. His brief sentences, however, inform us about several incidents that Prosper disdained to record. For instance, he describes the sending of various papal legations to the eastern court during 448-450; the entry at 448 even lends a touch of drama to the account: The emperor Theodosius, in order to defend the heresiarch Eutyches, summoned Leo, the bishop of the City. He wished to go but was prevented by the people, so he again sent bishops and priests.*128 Had Prosper wished, we cannot doubt that he could have developed this sequence of events into a rousing story of papal resistance to imperial oppression. But he did not choose to do so. The comparison of Prosper with his Roman continuator also shows another remarkable thing about the former’s account. When the entries of the anonymous chronicle for 450 are laid beside Prosper’s version of the events of that year, it becomes clear that Prosper framed his story so as to exclude one of the key actors, the Augusta Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius II. She played a crucial part in the resolution of both the political and the ecclesiastical crisis that followed her brother’s death.129 Yet Prosper ignored her role entirely. His silence about the great queen is worth investigation, for it touches on two important issues. The first is Prosper’s surprisingly positive attitude to Marcian’s assumption of power. Marcian’s orthodoxy gave Prosper sufficient reason to praise the new emperor and to assert his suitability for the throne. But the way in which the chronicler did so is surprising. Marcian is shown as a man with a good relationship to the army. His election took place with its wholehearted assent (consensione totius exercitus). Such unanimity within the military establishment was as welcome to Prosper as it was rare; it should be recalled that he used consensio previously to laud the uncontested election of a worthy pope.130 The description of Marcian as “ indispensable” (pernecessarius) is also noteworthy. It is reminiscent of the usage of necessarius and pernecessarius by the fourth-century historian Eutropius and especially by the author of the Historia Augusta (no earlier than the end of that century), who employed these terms to characterize the O, and a somewhat shorter one, continued soon after in Africa, in mss. Rv and RP, which are descended from a common archetype. 128 Ibid., 5 (ms. O; CM, 1: 489). Wilhelm Ensslin, s.v. “Pulcheria,” RE, 23, Pt. 2: 1958-1961. n" Prosp. 1309.

119

crisis-solving soldier-emperors of the third century. Indispensability was the chief claim of such men to the imperial throne. According to the fourth-century writers, the needs of the state excused the cruelty of some emperors and, in other cases, mitigated their disloyalty to earlier rulers.131 Prosper’s use of such language, his appeal to indispensability as a claim to legitimacy, are particularly noteworthy because when younger he had been very attached to the dynastic principle. By 451, it appears, he had changed his mind.132 Indeed, Prosper went out of his way to celebrate Marcian’s accession as a new start. The eastern court had broken the custom of the Theodosian line by choosirig Marcian without consulting Valentinian III, who at his cousin’s death was in theory senior emperor. There had been, however, an attempt to give Marcian the appearance of dynastic legitimacy by marrying him to Pulcheria, who was a force to be reckoned with. The marriage was well-known and recorded by Prosper’s anonymous Roman continuator. But it was ignored by Prosper. Far from relying on this legitimation by marriage to justify his support for Marcian, he seems to have changed his own account of Valentinian’s accession to put him on an equal footing with the new eastern emperor: where early versions of Prosper’s chronicle state that Valentinian III was appointed by Theodosius II, later ones omit any reference to Theodosius’s role and merely say Valentinian was elected by the army, like Marcian.133 It can scarcely be doubted that in 451 Prosper valued Marcian chiefly as a supporter of Roman orthodoxy. Yet his willingness to praise the new emperor as a suitable military leader whose dynastic position was irrelevant is astonishing. One has the feeling that the continued political incompetence and recent religious misadventures of the Theodosians had eroded Prosper’s long-standing loyalty to the hereditary succession. The very timing of his remarks on Marcian adds to their significance. In 451 Marcian had not yet been 1,1 Eutropius, Breviarium ab urbe condita 9.14 (concerning Aurelian; MGH:ΛΑ, 2: 158); Karl Lessing, Scriptorum historiae Augustae lexicon (1901-6; reprint ed. Hildesheim, 1964), p. 377, for the use of “necessarius" and "pernecessarius" in the Historia Augusta)·, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, trans, by David Magie, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1922-32), for the HA itself. Particularly interesting are the HA references to Avidius Cassius (1.2; 2.7. Loeb 1: 232-236), Ingenuus (Tyranni Triginta 9.2. Loeb 3: 82), Claudius (16.3. Loeb 3: 185-186), and Aurelian (37.1. Loeb 3: 266) as indispensable men. Cf. the attitude of the Chronicler of 452 to Maximus; see below, chapter IV, § 7. 1” On the election of Marcian see Ernst Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, ed. by J-R. Palanque (Paris, 1949-59), 1, Pt. 1:311-312, and W. Ensslin, s.v. “Marcianus" n. 34, RE, 14, Pt. 2: 1514-1516. For Prosper’s changes to the account of Valentinian Ill’s election, see above, § 4.

120

PROSPER

recognized by the western court, but was welcomed by many observers as a long-needed cure for the uselessness of the Theodosians. Prosper’s testimony is further evidence that Marcian’s accession was a turning point in fifth-century attitudes toward the imperial office. Prosper’s suppression of Pulcheria’s political significance appears at first to be simply a by-product of his chosen perspective on the recent change of government. His silence about her religious influence is, however, more peculiar. Marcian’s theological opinions, indeed his person, were unremarked before he became emperor; by contrast, his new wife’s piety and religious leadership had, by 450, been well known for decades.134 In the current crisis Pulcheria was a key ally of the orthodox, as Leo and even Prosper’s Roman continuator knew: Pulcheria Augusta became the wife of Marcian. She redispatched with honor the priests sent against Eutyches by pope Leo, writing to him that she held that faith which he himself had prescribed, and condemned with Eutyches himself all those who were shown to have consented to his error.135

Yet Prosper conceded no role whatsoever to the Augusta in his own summary of the ecclesiastical settlement. That Pulcheria should be left out of Prosper’s discussion might be fortuitous were it not for the fact that his silence about the most powerful woman in the east is matched by his silence concerning the activities of her equally influential cousin, Galla Placidia. Prosper never mentioned Placidia after 425, although the Roman continuator and even the hostile Chronicler of 452 found her worthy of notice.136 That both women were buried in oblivion shows us that the objection was not a personal one to a single figure, but was a matter of principle. Prosper, who lived in a period where royal women wielded an historically unusual amount of power in the Roman state, disliked their influence so much that he wrote the chief offenders out of his history. The paltry remains of the edition of 451 indicate that it did not circulate widely. Perhaps it was available only to a few readers in ' 34 The most extensive recent discussion of Pulcheria’s role in politics and religion is to be found in Kenneth Holum, Theodosian Empresses: Women and imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1982), pp. 90-111, 148-174, 196-216. 1,5 Continuatio codicum Ovetensis et Reichenaviensis 16-17 (CM, 1: 490). 1Jt Ibid., 10 (ms. O), 12 (mss. R) (On the latter entry see Oost, “ Some Problems in the History of Galla PÌacidia,” Classical Philology, 60 (1965): 7-8, and n. 36). Chron. 452 136, and below, chapter IV, § 7.

121

Rome itself. Even there it found no continuators. The material contained in this edition found its way to a wider public only with the release of the far more popular final edition of 455.

8. The Edition of 455 The final edition of Prosper’s chronicle, like that of 451, covers a very short period, specifically the years 451-455. This was a very eventful time: there took place three major invasions of the western empire, a great church council, the murders of two emperors and a genera­ lissimo, and the sack of Rome itself. What Prosper said about these matters is of exceptional interest. Once again the details he provides are valuable in themselves, but the presentation and evaluation of the events are even more worthy of attention. The upheavals witnessed by the chronicler evoked from him an outstanding literary response, an account in which all the dramatic possibilities were exploited to the full. But, as always, Prosper was interested in more than rhetorical effect. His subject provided him with the opportunity to demonstrate to his readers more clearly than before the uncertainties of earthly power and the efficacy of power derived from God. The first two new entries in the edition, chapters 1364 and 1365 (A.D. 451 and 452), must be considered as one. They are separated only by the listing of the consuls for 452, and both concern Attila’s attacks on the western empire. The language is pitched high to match the seriousness of the story told. Attila, according to the chronicler, had “grown in might since the murder of his brother,” and entered Gaul bringing war, “which, he announced, he as the guardian of Roman friendship was going to inflict on the Goths.” But after many cities of Gaul had suffered savage attacks, “ it pleased both the Goths and us [nostris]" to oppose the proud enemies. “ And,” continues the entry, “so great was the foresight [providentia] of Patrician Aetius that he quickly brought warlike men from all over and met the opposing multitude with not unequal force.” It was a great victory, averred Prosper, because despite great slaughter, it was the Huns who lost confidence and returned home.137 For once, Prosper praised Aetius forthrightly for an extraordinary accomplishment; but as in the case of Litorius, what the chronicler gave with one hand he immediately took back with the other. The providentia which enabled the patrician to overcome Attila deserted 1,7 Prosp. 1364.

122

PROSPER

him the very next year. For when Attila entered Italy in 452, it was revealed that: ...our leader Aetius had expected nothing [n ih il d u c e n o s tr o A e d o ... after the exertions of the first war, so he was unable even to use the passes of the Alps by which enemies could be kept out.

p r o s p ic ie n te )

He followed his mistake with a disgraceful cowardice: He judged that his only hope was to leave Italy completely, together with the emperor. But when this appeared full of dishonor and danger, shame repressed fear.

In the face of the Hunnic onslaughts, the emperor’s advisers turned to the diplomatic alternative: “Nothing was thought more salubrious than to seek peace from the very savage king through ambassa­ dors.” 138 Prosper’s account of the invasion of Italy has been interpreted as an attack on Aetius’s competence and character.139That may well be the case, for when Prosper wrote Aetius was dead and he could finally say whatever he wished. But Prosper was also using the case of Aetius to expose the unreliability of merely human wisdom and effort. For of course it was Pope Leo who was chosen, along with two government officials, to negotiate with Attila. Leo, described as “the most blessed pope,” relied on nothing else but “ the help of God, who one should know is never missing from the labors of the pious.” With such support he could not, and did not, fail: Nor did anything follow but what faith had anticipated. The king was so delighted in the presence of the chief pontiff that he both gave orders to refrain from warfare and, having promised peace, withdrew across the Danube.140

Aetius’s role in Prosper’s account of the Hunnic war is reminiscent of that played by Litorius earlier. It was Litorius’s search for foreknowledge that led to his downfall.141 Prosper demonstrated here that Aetius, too, was deceived by relying on his own judgement; his foresight was enough to assure victory in Gaul, but it failed him all too quickly. The merely human efforts of Aetius were contrasted with those of Leo, a holy man who could tap the power of God. In 453, the year following the invasion of Italy, Prosper found nt Prosp. 1365. Maenchen-Helfen, pp. 135-136. Iw Prosp. 1365. 141 See above, § 6.

THH I 1)11ION Ot 455

12.4

three events worthy of notice. The first is something of a surprise, for it is here, two years late, that Prosper recorded the Council of Chalcedon (c. 1369). This is no simple error. Prosper’s interest in doctrine and ecclesiastical politics, his close contact with papal circles, his detailed knowledge of events during these years, make it inconceivable that he put the famous council in 453 rather than 451 by mistake. He may well have postdated the council to avoid breaking up his long account of the Hunnic war and lessening its effect on the reader. But that he was willing to do so is indicative of a rather cool attitude toward the council, which attitude we know was shared by the Roman church as a whole. The council, which Leo had discouraged from the first as unnecessary, had turned out rather badly from Rome’s point of view. It had adopted Leo’s Tome as a definitive statement on the Incarnation, but the assembled fathers had also violated ancient tradition by granting the see of Constan­ tinople second place in dignity behind Old Rome itself. Although Rome’s status was unaffected, the promotion of the eastern capital, which had no ancient ecclesiastical tradition, over the apostolic foundations of Alexandria and Antioch was considered an outrage. Not only did this ruling ignore the canons of Nicaea; the fact that mere political power could thus shake the traditions of the church was an implied threat to Rome. Leo’s reluctance to recognize the acts of Chalcedon — which he overcame, significantly, only in early 453 — is reflected in Prosper’s account.142 The other two entries under 453 concern the aftermath of the war with the Huns. Chapter 1370 reports the dissolution of the empire of Attila after the proud king’s death. Its end was a fitting one for a kingdom based on murder and war: A great conflict arose among his sons concerning the succession to the realm, and then the revolt of some of the peoples subject to the Huns created pretexts and opportunities for war, in which those very warlike fo r haughty] peoples [fe r o c iss im i p o p u li ] were consumed in mutual attacks.

Like the Huns, the Goths also suffered from dissension, which again turned out to the advantage of the Romans. Prosper’s treatment of this incident is of great interest (c. 1371): Among the Goths settled in G aul,145 dissension arose among the sons 142 Leo, lip. 104-107, 114-117 (PL 54: 991-1010, 1027-10.49). 145 “Apud Gothos intra Gallias consistentes,” might perhaps be better translated as “Among the Goths,stationed in Gaul,” an indication that Prosper regarded the Gothic federates as part of a military garrison (if perhaps an unruly one).

124

PROSPER

o f King Theodoric [d. 451 fighting the Huns], of whom Thorismud, the eldest, had succeeded his father. When the king [Thorismud] attempted things which opposed both Roman peace and Gothic tranquillity, he was killed by his brothers for relentlessly pursuing harmful plans.

Prosper’s concern for Roman peace and Gothic tranquillity was long-standing, but this is his plainest comment on the relations between the two peoples. A friendly arrangement with the Goths is shown to be of obvious utility. Although such an observation does not qualify as a stunning insight in the aftermath of the defeat of the Huns, it gains in significance when one remembers that it was written in 455, just as the new emperor Avitus was forging a close relationship with the Gothic king Theodoric II. The Vandal sack of Rome had reinforced the lesson of 451, and the indispensability of a friendly arrangem ent with the G oth s, w ho were seen as the best counterweight to Geiseric, was keenly appreciated. The discussion of Gothic affairs is one of several indications of how Prosper’s view of the barbarians had changed since 433. Then, the barbarians could be safely dismissed as marginal; in 455, by contrast, Prosper used language that placed the Goths on a level with the Romans. In his discussion of the war with Attila, he had talked of the alliance as one pleasing “both the Goths and us,” as if speaking of two equal powers; in this chapter, he conjoined the concepts of “Roman peace and Gothic tranquillity.” 144 Other usages are equally suggestive of a changed consciousness. In previous editions the Roman empire and people were so much in the center of the picture that Prosper needed no word to distinguish the Romans from others. With his focus on individual personalities, he seems to have avoided speaking of the collectivity of the Roman people. Certainly there are no “ Romani” in the early parts of his continuation. In the edition of 455, however, a word to designate that collectivity had to be found, and the word “we” [nos, noster] was pressed into service. Chapter 1364 says that “we” fought with the Goths against Attila in Gaul, and Aetius was “ our” leader in the war in Italy. The change in method demonstrates a new awareness in Prosper of the importance of the barbarian fact. This development is startling only in that it occurred rather later than one might have expected. If dissension among the gentes had worked in Rome’s favor, the empire was still to suffer grievously from its own domestic strife, 144 Prosp. 1364, 1371.

T H E E D IT IO N O F 455

125

which was to have enormously destructive consequences. The word “domestic” is particularly appropriate here, because the quarrel (described in c. 1373, A.D. 454) concerned an imperial marriage. Aetius was trying, as Stilicho once had, to marry his heir to the daughter of an emperor who had no sons.145 The project, however, provoked opposition: After mutual oaths of promised faith, and after a pact of marriage between their children, ominous hostility grew up between Emperor Valentinian and Patrician Aetius, and whence kindness should have grown from love, thence the tinder of hate flared up. It was believed that Heraclius the eunuch was the inciter [of this state of affairs], and that through insincere devotion so bound the mind of the emperor to himself that he could easily impel him in whatever direction he wished.

It is intriguing that the manuscripts diverge at this point to give two different versions of the prelude to the murder of Aetius which was to follow. One re-emphasizes H eraclius’s efforts to turn the emperor against his patrician, which finally convinced Valentinian that Aetius had to die before he himself was endangered; the other shows Aetius provoking the emperor to sudden and possibly unpremeditated violence: “When Aetius vehemently again sought agreement and excitedly and very angrily urged the cause of his son,” then (as both versions say) “he was cruelly killed by the hand of the emperor and those standing around.” The same fate overtook Boethius, the praetorian prefect, “who was joined to [Aetius] by great friendship.” We are left uncertain whether Prosper here showed Aetius as an over-ambitious man whose behavior contributed to his own death, or wholly a victim of a devious plot by an evil eunuch. Both versions are written in Prosper’s style. Perhaps he was compelled to alter his story at some point by a shift in the political wind.146 In any case, Prosper, at least in retrospect, saw the crime as a breaking of friendship (amicitia) where it was most needed. It led directly to a greater crime the following year (c. 1375, A.D. 455). Valentinian “ imprudently” neglected to avoid Aetius’s friends and retainers, who set upon him at a military parade, killing both him and Heraclius. Prosper said disapprovingly, “None of the regal multitude was excited to avenge so great a treason.” Petronius Maximus then succeeded to the emperorship. In this 145 John Michael O’Flynn, Generalissimos o f the Western Roman Empire (Ed­ monton, 1983), pp. 60-61, 95. 146 Mommsen, following Duchesne, suggested (at CM, 1: 379) that the original entry may have been a longer one, shortened differently by later scribes.

126

PROSPER

man Prosper saw the ultimate corruption of earthly ambition (ibid.): Although it was believed he would be in all ways beneficial to the endangered state, he quickly showed what kind o f mind he had: not only did he not punish Valentinian’s murderers, but he even received them into his friendship. He prohibited the Augusta to mourn the loss of her husband, and after a very few days he forced her to become his wife. But he was not long able to exercise such lack of restraint [s e d h a c in c o n tin en tia non diu p o t it u s e s t\.

Geiseric immediately sent an expedition against Rome, where Maximus was in residence. The emperor’s only reaction was to give the citizens license to flee and to prepare to fly himself. At this point, “the seventy-seventh day of his power, he was torn to pieces by the royal slaves, and being thrown in the Tiber, he also lacked a sepulchre,” which Prosper no doubt thought an appropriate end for such a man. The sequel was grim: “The Roman captivity, worthy of many tears, followed the death of Maximus immediately, and Geiseric took the city, which was bereft of any protection.” But if its secular leaders had failed Rome, another power saved the city from the very worst (ibid.): Holy Pope Leo ran out to meet [Geiseric] outside the gates, and, with God’s help, by his supplication so softened him that he abstained from fire, slaughter, and torture, on condition that all power was given to him. Therefore, during fourteen days of free and secure searching, Rome was emptied of all its wealth, and many thousands of captives, ... with the queen and her daughters, were abducted to Carthage.

After two successive emperors had proved empty, foolish, ambitious and sinful, Leo provided, with God’s help, the only safety Rome had. In another’s hands, this scene might have lent itself to apocalyptic imagery. Geiseric could have been the figure of Antichrist, and the sack itself become a presage of the end of the world. But Prosper did not interpret it thus. He ended his chronicle with no dire predictions; he did not even conclude with the combined triumph and tragedy of chapter 1375, although chronologically Geiseric’s sack is the latest event. His final entry returns us to Prosper the controversialist and teacher (c. 1376): The same year Easter was celebrated on April 24th by the stubborn intention o f the bishop of Alexandria, with whom all the easterners agreed, although holy Pope Leo protested that April 17th ought rather to be celebrated, in which date there was neither an error in calculation of the plenilune nor in the limit o f the first of the month. There are

PROSPER'S MORAI CRITIQUE OF RECENT HISTORY

127

letters extant of this pope to the most clement prince Marcian, in which the true calculation was shown openly and diligently. By these the Catholic church can be instructed, because this belief [i.e., the eastern calculation] should be tolerated by zeal for unity and peace rather than approved, and it should never be imitated, since what gives deadly offense should lose all authority in perpetuity.

It may seem ludicrous that Prosper could be so wrapped up in this very technical matter after the disaster he described so compellingly in the previous entry.147 But the inclusion of this material at the end of the chronicle is indicative of a remarkable resilience in his outlook: Rome may have fallen, but life would go on. His discussion of the Easter dispute was a minor but concrete step to ensure that the life of the church would go on as well, and in the correct manner.

9. Prosper’s Moral Critique of Recent History It has been argued above that Prosper, in his depiction of political and military events, was more interested in the moral lesson of those events than in any other aspect. He was particularly critical of unworthy secular leaders, and contrasted their ineffective efforts with the success of the church, under the direction of the bishops of Rome, in meeting spiritual challenges. Prosper’s criticism of power­ ful men of the world was based in part on their imprudence, in other words on grounds that might be morally neutral, but the imprudence of such men was usually shown to be the direct result of injustice, temerity, and especially pride. Prosper was never more Augustinian in his approach to history than when he criticized the warlords for their pride. For both master and disciple, pride was the worst vice of the worldly. Augustine characterized the City o f God, his own massive treatise on how Christians should view the course of history, as an attempt “to persuade the proud how great is the virtue of humility, which raises us, not by a quite human arrogance, but by a divine grace, above all earthly dignities that totter on this shifting scene.” 148 For both men, too, the abhorrence of pride was rooted in their theology of salvation. The essence of Pelagius’s error was a belief that human beings could save their souls through their own efforts. Prosper, like 147 Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums, 1: 542-546, shows how important this matter was considered in Rome. M# De civitate Dei 1. praef. (CSEt. 40, Pt. 1: 3-4); trans, from Augustine, The City of God, trans, by M. Dods (New York, 1950), p. 3.

PROSPER

Augustine, rejected that position utterly: “ By the sin of Adam all men lost their natural ability for good and their innocence. No one can rise from the depths of this fall of his own free will unless he be raised by the grace of God’s mercy.” 149 To believe otherwise was the deadliest form of pride. As Prosper said in De Ingratis, If then, believing that merit can precede faith, you attribute merit to the good works of an unbeliever, or, if you wish to regard your faith as begotten from free will and not received as a gift from a benefactor, salvific grace finds no place among you. It has been excluded by your puffed up wills, which you parade with head proudly erect, but in such a manner that your fall is heavier for its being from a greater height.150

The chronicle contains many examples that show pride as being of doubtful efficacy even in transacting the world’s business. Prosper believed that those who relied on their own powers rather than on God courted disaster. He explained that danger in De vocatione omnium gentium: The difference between natural will and spiritual will is that the former concerns itself only with earthly and perishable things. Even if human hearts led by natural will do good things, they deserve no more than earthly glory because they refer their virtues not to God but themselves. They return to self-love and claim virtues as their own merit... They actually begin to spoil in their own hearts those very natural gifts of God, and they pass from the rightful use o f them to the practice of unnumbered vices.151

Indeed, “A fickle will which is not ruled by the changeless will of God runs the more quickly into sin the more keenly it is bent on action.” 152 This is obviously applicable to the worldly men of action depicted in the chronicle. As Scripture itself said, in a verse that Prosper quoted elsewhere, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man, and makes flesh his arm, and whose heart turns away from the Lord.” 153 As we have seen before, Prosper’s moral analysis is in some ways strikingly similar to that of Salvian, a contemporary ascetic who also found in recent events material for moral reflection. Like Prosper, 14,1 Prosper, C a p itu la 1 (PL 51: 205; De Letter D e fe n s e o f A u g u s tin e , p. 179). 150 Vv. 452-458 (PL 51: 119); trans, from C a rm e n d e In g ra tis S . P ro sp e ri A q u ila n i: A T ran sla tio n w ith an In tro d u c tio n a n d a C o m m e n ta r y , trans, and comm, by Charles T. Hueglemeyer, Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, v. 95 (Washington, 1962), p. 71. 151 D e vo ca tio n e o m n iu m g e n tiu m 1.4 (PL 51: 650-651; De Letter, pp. 28-30). 152 Ibid., 1.6 (PL 51: 652-653; De Letter, pp. 31-33). 155 Jer. 17.5; C o n tr a C o lla to re m 16.1 (PL 51: 259-260; De Letter D e fe n s e o f A u g u stin e p. 119).

PROSPERS MORAL CRITIQUE OF RECENT HISTORY

129

Salvian was a Gaul who as a refugee fled to Marseille and took up a monastic existence there; Salvian, however, remained and became part of the mainstream of Gallic asceticism. His De gubernatione Dei (written sometime in the 440s) sought to refute a current complaint, inspired by Roman defeats at the hands of the barbarians, that God neglected the world, and did not heed the sufferings of the good or the crimes of evil men.154 Not so, said Salvian, God not only rules the world, but he does so justly. The Romans were suffering because they were sinners on a grand scale. The gentes had their characteristic faults, but the Romans were guilty of all sins. Their sins were the worse because, unlike the relatively blameless barbarians, they possessed the word of God in its pure and unadulterated form.155 Although Salvian accused his contemporaries of every imaginable sin, he attributed much of the vice of the Romans to pride. They refused to acknowledge that the disasters they experienced were a just punishment, or even that the benefits they occasionally reaped were from God.156157Unlike the barbarians, they relied on their own powers, rather than on the power of God. It is in this context that Salvian cited the case of Litorius, and contrasted his self-reliance with the behavior of his Gothic enemies, who petitioned God ceaselessly and successfully on the eve of battle.151 There is much in Salvian’s jeremiad that Prosper would have agreed with. The chronicler, too, had a pessimistic view of what fallen human nature could accomplish. He also believed that the great struggle of the times was the spiritual one against sin, and not the military one against earthly enemies. But his tone differs greatly from Salvian’s. The latter condemned the Romans as a whole because they were all — or nearly all — sinners deserving punish­ ment. In his urgency to impress upon his readers the baseness of their behavior, he portrayed the situation of the empire and its sinning people, so intimately connected, as nearly hopeless: “Our whole life is one continuous shipwreck; indeed all men are living such vicious lives that there seems to be no Christian who is not wrecked constantly.” 158 Prosper, although he did not spare sin and cor­ ruption, neither characterized the Roman people as a whole as depraved, nor presented his time as one of catastrophic defeat. 154 155 156 157 158

De gub. Dei 1.1, 3.1 (MGH: AA, 1: 2-3, 23-25). Ibid., 7.15; 4.12-14 (MGH: AA, 1: 95, 47-50). Ibid., 5.1,3; 6.16-18 (MGH: AA, 1: 55-58, 81-84). Ibid., 7.9-11 (MGH: AA, 1: 90-92). Ibid., 3.4 (MGH: AA, 1: 27-28).

130

PROSPER

Certainly there is disaster aplenty in his historical account, almost all of it the result of sin. But the sins are the sins of individuals, while the disasters serve as a backdrop for the victories of the church through the efforts of the truly godly. Where Salvian conceded to the few righteous little more than an opportunity to demonstrate theii patience, Prosper’s righteous did much more.159 Even taking the difference in genre into account, the contrast in outlook is remarkable. Where Salvian’s exhortation is painted in colors of the deepest gloom, Prosper’s work shows an almost surprising serenity, even in the face of disaster on his own doorstep. But he shared this serenity with others. Chief among them, of course, was Augustine, who despaired of no one, because he knew that the city of this world contained many who were destined to be citizens of the city of God; nor, trusting in the mercy and justice of God, was he dismayed that some members of the church would not share in the marvellous and final victory of faith.160 Prosper’s attitude is also paralleled in the sermons of his bishop, Leo the Great. Leo could berate sinners and warn them of God’s judgement,161 but he usually preferred to teach his flock more positive lessons: that much was possible with God’s help, that a Christian community could achieve a holy unanimity impossible in any other way. Leo believed strongly that his era was one of spiritual progress and that such progress was the key to true peace.162 Leo himself was Prosper’s chief example of the possibilities of faith and the progress of God’s work in the world. The worthy heir to a great tradition, he is portrayed in the chronicle as a man of extraordinary holiness. Prosper constantly referred to him after his 1W Ibid., 1.2-4 (MGH: AA, 1: 3-7). Salvian distinguishes in the cited passage between evils that tried religious men and those that were the just punishment of the worldly. De civitate Dei 1.35 (CSEL 40, Pt. I: 65-67). Serm. 84, (PL 54: 433-434) on the neglect of the commemoration of the sack of Rome by Geiscric and the mercy shown by God on that occasion. Unanimity of a pious society: ibid., 88.4 (PL 54: 442-443); how the nations are breaking away from Satan’s dominion (and his desire to strike back at unwary Christians) 40.2 (PL 54: 268-269); the Devil rages as nations are saved, 49.3 (PL 54: 303); the primacy of the spiritual struggle: 39 (PL: 263-267). On this last point seeesp. ibid., 39.1(PL 54: 263) where in the context of a discussion of the utility of fasting, Leo says: “For our case is almost the same as theirs [sc. the Hebrews oppressed by the Philistines) seeing that, as they were attacked by foes of the flesh, so are we chiefly attacked by spiritual enemies. And if we can conquer them by God’s grace enabling us to correct our ways, the strength of our bodily enemies will give way before us, and by our self-amendment we shall weaken those who were formidable to us, not by their own merits, but by our shortcomings.” Leo’s Christian optimism and his vision of a Christian society are remarked upon by Jean Leclerque in Leon le Grand, Sermons. trans. René Dolle, Sources Chrétiennes, v. 22, 49. 74, 200 (Paris, 1949-73), 1: 44-59.

PROSPERS m oral c r it iq u e o f r e c e n t h isto ry

131

accession as sanctus or beatissimus papa Leo. Leo’s energies were primarily devoted to the battle against spiritual error — and rightly so — but when his flock needed him he was quite capable of defending it from material suffering. The reason for his invariable success is made explicit: he relied on “the help of God, who one should know is never missing from the labors of the pious.” 163 Prosper’s portrayal of Leo as the key figure of recent history is perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of his chronicle. His method here was similar to that of the hagiographer, focussing on the deeds of a single holy individual as proof of God’s effective intervention in this world. And in fact Prosper was the first to trace a path to be followed by hagiographers of the next two generations. For as the empire crumbled in the west, a new type of saint’s life was to appear, stories of bishops and monks who were not only spiritual examples but strong figures who could tame the unjust powers of the world and protect otherwise helpless communities from the ravages of war. This was a role that earlier saints, such as Martin and Ambrose, had not been expected to fill in more peaceful times.164 The similarity of the new saints to Prosper’s Leo may be illustrated with a few examples. One of the first portrayals of a saint as protector of a community from material harm is found in the Life of St Germanus (d. 448), which was composed by Constantius of Lyon in the 480s.165 Constantius, who was writing in the first decade following the complete collapse of Roman power in Gaul, showed his hero, and not generals or emperors, as the chief defender of Gaul, and portrayed him also as the benefactor of Britain. Germanus’s sacerdotal power and brusque determination allowed him to deflect the cruelty and injustice of both the empire and the barbarians, whose outrages could be equally disastrous.166 Not that he forgot 1M E pithets applied to Pope Leo: Prosp. 1350, 1358, 1367, 1369, 1375. Leo’s reliance on God: ibid., 1367. 161 Sulpicius Severus’s Vita sancti Martini portrays a Martin with no interest in politici! affairs who never concerns himself with secular matters. The famous incident at c 20, in which Martin snubs the usurper Maximus in favor of one of his own priests merely demonstrates the superiority of the priestly office to the imperial one- Sulpice Sevère, Vie de Saint Martin, ed. Jacques Fontaine, Sources Chrétienncs, v. 133-135 (Paris, 1967-9), I: 294-298. Paulinus the Deacon’s Vila sancti Ambrosii (PI, 14: 28-50) shows its subject acting as a protector of the empire only after his death (when of course the need for such protection was felt more keenly, in the face of civil war and Gothic invasion), see c. 50, 51. ifti The Vita sancti Germani. Edition: Constance de Lyon, Vie de Saint Germain d'Auxerre, ed. by R. Borius, Sources Chrctiennes, v. 112 (Paris, 1965). Vila Germani 17-18, Borius, pp. 154-158 (Saxons and Rets); 28 Borius, p. 174176 (Aetius wishes to allow the Alans to ravage Armorica as a punishment for revolt). Note how Germanus’s victory in Britain is achieved more by spiritual power than by normal military means.

132

PROSPER

spiritual issues. Although Constantius’s account of Germanus’s military operations in Britain has always fascinated modern histo­ rians, he made it clear to his contemporaries that thegreatest benefit his hero conferred on that country was his doctrinal leadership against the Pelagian heresy.167 The troubles of late-fifth-century Italy also produced their tales of saintly intercessors. Ennodius’s Life o f St. Epiphanius (ca. 503) showed its subject, who was bishop of Pavia from 470-490, as preserving his home province of Liguria from all manner of external threats, taxation, depopulation, and destruction in war; he also protected the landowners from impoverishment and political per­ secution.168 Epiphanius’s method was gently to remind rulers who contemplated such outrages that they had profited greatly from God’s favor, and that such favor could continue only if they ordered their lives and policies by Christian principles, particularly those of mercy and forbearance. Unlike Germanus, Epiphanius never pre­ sumed to rebuke a powerful man, but like his Gallic predecessor he got results; for Epiphanius possessed not only spiritual power but the peculiarly Roman gift of rhetoric. The Gothic king Euric, after granting Epiphanius’s appeal for peace, marvelled that the Romans were able to subdue him with words.169Ennodius later commented in the same vein: “How much sharper is the blade of the tongue than that of the sword, learn, reader, from this: words vanquished him whom raised swords guarded.” 17017 Even more interesting for our purposes is the famous Life of St. Severinus.'1' Although it was written in Italy for an Italian audience in 509, it concerns a saint who worked in Noricum about a generation earlier. Severinus is an extreme example of a saint as protector of a community. He lived in a time and place where civil authority had completely broken down. Noricum was in turmoil, with the Roman population endangered by disorder and barbarian exploitation. In this chaos, only Severinus, a wandering monk, was able to take effective action to help the people of the province. His monopoly 167 Best illustrated ibid., 13, Borius, pp. 144-148. 1M Ed. Frederick Vogel, in MGH: AA, 7: 84-109. “ * Ibid., 90 (MGH: AA, 7: 95). 1,0 Ibid., 177 (MGH: AA, 7: 106). Sr. Genevieve Cook, The Life of St. Epiphanius by Ennodius: A Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, Catholic University of America Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin Language and Literature, v. 14 (Washington, 1942), p. 103. 171 The Vita sancti Severini. Edition: Eugippius, Das Leben des Heiligen Severin, ed. by Rudolf Noll (Berlin, 1963).

PROSPER'S MORAL CRITIQUE OF RECENT HISTORY

133

came through his direct connection to heaven. According to his biographer Eugippius — like Prosper an interpreter of Augustine to his contemporaries — Severinus always stressed the uselessness of human effort. The defense of the community had to be accomplished, or at least prefaced, by fasts, vigils and works of charity. Turning from petitioning God to attempting to deal with problems through one’s own efforts always invited catastrophe, which was never slow to ensue. Severinus, by his practice of constant fasting and prayer, was able to support the poor and repulse barbarian attacks, except from towns that he knew to be doomed because of their unwillingness to repent. Severinus was on occasion called upon to intercede with the neighboring barbarian kings in order to preserve Roman citizens in their rightful liberty. His lesson to the rulers he confronted was “that a victor, for his own good, should not get proud from his victories.” 172 He told them that their power was transitory, and that if they were unjust, they would lose it. Nor would he allow them to claim credit for the right use of power: “Have these people been preserved from the frequent raids of plunderers by your bow and sword? Have they not rather been preserved by the favor of God so that they may obey you for a short while?” 173 Although Severinus was quite capable of dispensing political advice or prophecy, he let it be known that kings should rather ask for knowledge of the next life.174 In all, Eugippius’s work taught that human effort was inevitably futile, and the only safety was in submission to God’s will. In some respects Prosper’s portrait of Leo the protector of Rome is a precursor of these later figures, though differences between him and the hagiographers are readily apparent. Prosper would never have approved of Ennodius’s strong emphasis on the power of rhetoric to accomplish good; neither did he have quite the low opinion of earthly prudence seen in the Life o f St. Severinus.175More importantly. Prosper spoke of a living person, where Constantius, Ennodius and Eugippius were praising people long dead. His glorification of a man still alive, and therefore still subject to the weaknesses to which fiesh is heir, is quite exceptional, as is his 172 V. Severini 31.3, Noll 98; Irans, by Ludwig Bieler and Ludmilla Krestan, in The Life o f St. Severin, The Fathers of the Church, v. 55 (Washington, 1965), p. 87. 1,1 Ibid., 31.5, Noll 98; trans. Bieler and Krestan, p. 87. 174 Ibid., 5.2, Noll 66. i. ' differences can be attributed to the fact that the latter two writers lived alter the jail of the Western Empire, while there is no indication, even in 455, that Prosper despaired of it.

IM

PROSPER

attribution of extraordinary spiritual power to such a figure. One might have expected him rather to emphasize the role of St. Peter, the patron of Rome, as a conduit of divine power and authority par excellence, as indeed Leo himself did.176 But although Prosper uses the word “apostolic” in connection with the papacy, Peter himself is not mentioned in the continuation. The focus is directly on Leo, and does not waver. Why did Prosper, who in his theological works stressed that no one could know the number or identity of the saved in this world,177 lavish so much attention on the present bishop of Rome rather than on his safely sanctified first predecessor? The reason is that Leo’s career embodied an important theological lesson. He was an example of what might be accomplished, beyond human expectation, by one full of grace. Despite his theoretical position. Prosper had always believed that God’s working upon and within the elect could sometimes be discerned. Around 430, in his great poem De Ingratis, he had praised Augustine in the following terms: The grace of Christ, pouring down upon Augustine from a fuller horn, gave him to our age, a lamp enkindled from the true light. The Godhead is truly his sustenance, his life, his repose. His one joy, his one love, his one glory is Christ. Since he has credited himself with none of the blessings that are his, God has become his all, and Wisdom is enshrined in her holy temple. His surpassing industry and work, among all those who have helped to drive the mad beasts [i.e., the Pelagians] away from the holy flock, splendidly permeate the whole world...God caused a stream of books to issue forth from the mouth of this wonderful man — from his mouth, I say, and flow over the whole earth to provide drink for the meek and lowly, striving to send its streams of grace flowing through the fields of men's hearts.178 Leo was for Prosper another Christian whose achievements and stature could only be explained by the special blessing of God. Further, he was an example of how the faithful must live. As Prosper said elsewhere, “The elect receive grace, not to allow them to be idle or to free them from the Enemy’s attacks, but to enable them to work well and to conquer the Enemy.” 179 Leo, on Prosper’s own showing,

176 Leo, Serm. 82 (PL 54: 422-428); cf. ibid., 85 (PL 54: 434-437) for Lawrence as a patron of Rome. 177 Prosper, Epistula ad Ruflnum de gratia et libero arbitrio 16 (PL 51: 86-87). 178 Vv. 92-101, 110-113 (PL 51: 102-103); trans. Huegelmeyer (n. 149), pp. 49, 51. 17,1 De vocatione omniumgentium 2.35 (PL 51: 717-719); trans. De Letter, p. 149-151. CT. Leo, Serm. 78.2 (PL 54: 416-417). See also Brown, Augustine, pp. 403-405.

PROSPERS MORAL CRITIQUE OF RECENT HISTORY

135

h a d done both; his deeds overshadowed those of all his contem­ poraries. The essential similarity between Prosper’s portrait of Leo and the saints’ lives referred to above lies in their provision of hope to the believing Christian. The stories told by Constantius, Ennodius, and Epiphanius demonstrated to readers of the late fifth and early sixth centuries how holy men had triumphed over worldly calamities in tim es of crisis only recently past, and assured contemporaries that th e power of God had proved (and would prove) effective when ■worldly men and institutions failed. Likewise, Prosper’s chronicle — particularly the last edition — offered hope to those who, looking at events only in their earthly aspect, might be tempted to despair. .Although the judgements of history might appear hard or puzzling, th e hand of God was behind them. In Prosper’s own words, ...To whatever course of human events we direct our attention, we shall find out that no centuries or events, no rising or falling generations are independent of God’s eternal and inscrutable judge­ ments. All conflicts of opposed interests and all the causes of confusing events which we are not able to search into and to explain, are simultaneously known and clear to God’s eternal knowledge. There nothing is unsettled even of the modalities of actions that are still come.1*0 prosper’s foray into history can best be understood as an attempt to clispel some of the confusion from his co-religionists’ minds and to im part to them his own faith that “ the very armies that exhaust the world help on the work of Christian grace...nothing can prevent CT. the notice in the Copenhagen Continuation of Prosper for 413 (CM, I: 300): “ Iovinus el Sebastianus fratres in Gallia regno arrepto perempti: capita eorum Ravennam perlata, simulquc frater eorum Sallustius occiditur.” (Bischoff and Koehler, “ Eine illustrierte Ausgabe," p. 127.) “Sallustius” is the proper form of the name of Jovinus’s second brother. Although Sebastian, Jovinus’s colleague in the usurpation, is mentioned in the Narratio (CM, 1: 630), Sallustius, a much more obscure figure, is not, That his execution is noted by the Chronicler of 452 suggests that the latter possessed a contemporary source. 44 Cf. the notes in Marcellinus Comes at 422 (CM, 2: 75): “ In tricennalia Honorii Maximus tyrannus et Iovinus ferro vincti de Hispania adducti atque interfecti sunt.” (Bischoff and Koehler, “ Eine illustrierte Ausgabe,” p. 128.) Bischoff suggests the insertion of “vincti” in the space after “ferro" in the Merseburg fragment. 45 Out of the thirteen entries for the twenty years covered by the Merseburg fragment, fully five concern the downfall of traitors.

THE SOURCES

157

De fide or De spiritu sancto. Two later entries report material about Ambrose himself that is probably derived from Paulinus’s wellknown Life of Ambrose. The Christian poet Prudentius rates a very complimentary notice. Of course the chronicler knew Sulpicius Severus, St. Martin’s biographer, and he mentioned in chapter fortyeight his three books about the great saint (the Life and the two books of Dialogues).44*6 The chronicler was also acquainted with a number of more recent works. Chapter eighty-six shows acquaintance with the works of John Cassian: it records the efforts of four “fathers of monasteries,” Honoratus, Minervius, Castor, and Jovinianus, prominent Provencal abbots to whom Cassian dedicated parts of his famous book of Conferences on monasticism.47 Cassian and his works are explicitly mentioned at chapter 104. Chapter eighty-one, the well-known notice about the heresy of the praedestinati, could indicate a familiarity with the still-extant Gallic catalogue of heresies known as Praedestinatus·, but a dependence on this treatise is not necessary to account for the entry.48 The chronicler knew of Augustine’s pro­ digious output, as well as some lost religious books by the Gallic writer Polemius Silvius, a man remembered today only for his almanac, the Laterculus.49 The chronicler’s knowledge of the ecclesiastical literature of his time reveals him to be no mere recorder of noteworthy events. He was something of a man of letters, one with a decidedly religious bent. Like Prosper, and unlike their common model Jerome, he had very little interest in secular authors; only one such man, the extraordinarily influential poet Claudian — also mentioned by Prosper — found a place in his account.50 Even so, the pagan poet was put in his place by the way he was contrasted with Prudentius. Both men are noted under the same year, in the following terms:

44 CM, J: 619. See above, n. 32. 47 Holder-Egger, “Das Chronicon Imperiale,” pp. 113-114; CM, I: 656 n. 4. 48 P ra e d e s tin a tu s is edited in PL 53: 579-672; c. 90 (cols. 670-672) discusses the p ra e d e stin a ti. P. De Letter (in Prosper, T h e D e fe n se o f A u g u stin e , p. 8) attributes P ra e d e stin a tu s to Arnobius the Younger, a theory also favored by Émile Amann (“ Praedestinatus,” D ic tio n n a ire d e th é o to g ìe c a th o liq u e 12, Pt. 2, cols 2778-2779). The Chronicler of 452 does not follow the P ra e d e stin a tu s in his listing of heresies. 49 C hron. 4 5 2 47 (Augustine’s writings; c. 17 shows a biographical knowledge of Augustine possibly derived from the C onfessions)·, C hron. 4 5 2 121 (Polemius Silvius; see also below, § 5. The L a te rc u lu s is edited by Mommsen, CM, 1: 511-551). 50 Prosp. 1205.

THI-: GALLIC· CHRONICLER OF 452

c. 35 The poel C'laudian was considered worthy of admiration, c. 37 Prudentius, ourJChristian] lyric poet, a man of distinguished Spanish descent, exercised the strength of his genius.

The books and authors listeci by the Chronicler of 452 indicate his strong interest in asceticism. Cassian, Sulpicius Severus, and perhaps the Historia monachorum were part of his reading. Non-literary references to Gallic personalities confirm this interest. Martin is mentioned twice, once for his “ apostolic virtues” (c. 4) and again at his death (c. 43), where the Gallic chronicler said that “ Martinshook off his body after a splendidly-lived life.” We are told (at c. 41) that Paulinus of Noia — a native of Gaul associated with Martin by his biographer, Sulpicius Severus — “ provided an admirable example by selling everything, since he was the lord of countless estates. Then, unencumbered, he chose the religious life.” The chronicler lauded four famous abbots, and chose to remember three recently-dead bishops. Germanus of Auxerre, Eucherius of Lyon, and Hilary of Arles, in a way that emphasized their asceticism. The latter two, who were both monks at Lcrins before they became bishops, were praised for their “distinguished lives” (c. 134), and Germanus was explicitly complimented for “ his virtues and the rigor of his life” (c. 114). Prosper too was a devotee of the ascetic life, but we know this only from his other writings; in the Chronicle of 452, monks and writers on asceticism were given a central place in the life of the church. Where Prosper and his anonymous contemporary disagreed was on the subject of Augustine and his place in the church. Not that the Chronicler of 452 disregarded Augustine; like Prosper, he gave him three different entries, more than any cleric save Ambrose. His evaluation of the African theologian, however, was notably un­ enti! usiastic: c. 17 Augustine, who was then teaching rhetoric at Milan, aban­ doned the schools and was converted to the true faith. He had previously been a Manichaean. c. 47 Augustine discussed many things in countless books, c. 81 The heresy of the p r a e d e s tin a ti, which is said to have had its origin with Augustine, began to spread slowly in this period.

There is no reference to the fact that Augustine was a bishop and a patron of monks, or to his defense of Catholic doctrine against the Donatists and Pelagius (whom the chronicler nonetheless condemned as a “madman [who] attempted to pollute the churches with execrable dogma.”) Rather we are given an Augustine who is an

THE SOURCES

159

altogether dubious figure. The portrayal of Augustine and his theological influence found in the Chronicle of 452 reflects a common critical view that was to reign in Gaul for the rest of the fifth century. Chapter eighty-one is reminiscent ot the position taken by the anonymous author of the Praedestinatus, a catalogue of heresies issued in Gaul in the 430s. Based very largely on Augustine’s De haeresibus, this pamphlet concluded by naming the doctrine of predestination as the latest of the heresies to afflict the church.'’1 The Praedestinatus, however, absolved Augustine himself from involvement in this heresy and claimed instead that the praedestinati had falsely attributed erroneous doctrines to him. The Chronicler of 452 appears to have taken a similar position. He traced the doctrine of the heretics to Augustine, but hesitated to denounce him in the forthright and sometimes abusive terms he used against undoubted heretics such as Pelagius and Nestorius.52 This did not, however, prevent the chronicler from highlighting the negative aspects of Augustine’s career. He emphasized that Augustine was a Manichaean before he became a catholic. This point was to prove, later in the century, important in Gallic criticism of predestination.53 His reflections on Augustine’s vast corpus of writing can also be paralleled in later Gallic literature. As Valentin pointed out long ago, to say that Augustine discussed “many subjects in countless books” was scarcely praise, but rather a skeptical evaluation of the worth ofthat labor, comparable with that made by Gennadius (also a man of South Gaul) in the early sixth century: “Augustine wrote works so many that they cannot all be gathered... wherefore on the account of his much speaking Solomon’s saying came true that ‘In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin.’” Gennadius, however, combined this criticism with a general and explicit commendation of Augustine’s life and works. The lack of such sentiments in the Chronicle of 452 is significant, and shows him M See n. 48 above. ” Chron. 452 44: “Pelagius vesanus doctrina execrabili ecclesias conmacularc conatur.’’; ibid. 58: "Nestorius Constantinopolites episcopus ad haeresim, quae in Christo deum ab homine separat, avertitur.”; ibid. 135; “Haercsis nefaria a quodam archimandrite |Eutyches] commota...” " Bishop Faustus of Riez, a prominent former abbot of Lcrins, considered Augustine's predestination a residue of his youthful Manichaeism. See Nora K. Chadwick, Poetry and Utters in Parly Christian Gant (London, 1955), pp. 192-207, and Adoll von Harnack, History of Dogma, trans, from the 3rd ed. by Neil Buchanan (1900; Dover reprint ed. New York, 1961) 5; 252-254.

160

T H E G A L L I C C H R O N I C L E R O F 452

to be aligned with the hard-line anti-Augustinians.54 The discussion of Augustine reveals one of the most important differences between the Anonymous of 452 and his compatriot Prosper. Where Prosper’s devotion to Augustine had alienated him from the church in Gaul and led to his relocation in Rome, the Chronicler of 452 held opinions more typical of his countrymen. He was among those who attacked the doctrine of predestination and labelled it heresy. Hence the lack of reference to Prosper in the Gallic chronicle, despite his prominence as an ecclesiastical writer. Prosper was the most adamant defender of a position that the Chroniclerof 452 abhorred; the latter may well have seen him as the chief of the praedestinati. Our examination of the sources and the attested reading of the Chronicler of 452 is useful in placing him within his literary context. Considering his disagreements with Prosper, which will merit further discussion, he was surprisingly like the (apparently) older man. He was a devout Christian of an ascetic bent, whose learning was more that of a monk and a theologian than that of a student of history. As in the case of Prosper, his interest in church matters cannot be taken as an infallible guide to his status within the church. He may have been a priest, a monk, or neither. Perhaps he, too, was a conversus. His approach to history was, however, that of a man concerned with the progress of true doctrine and the Catholic church in the universal context of salvation history.

5. The Chronicler as an O bserver of the Church in his D ay If the Chronicler of 452 was a Christian historian, continuing a universal chronicle, he was also a Gaul whose experience and knowledge were limited to the condition of the church in his own country. This did not prevent him from expressing strong opinions on the state of the church as a whole. Some of the most interesting material in the chronicle concerns the unknown author’s attitudes to authority within the church and the threat of heresy, especially Arianism, in his own day. Because those attitudes are expressed in 54 Valentin, p. 670; Gennadius De viris intusiribus 39. Richardson p. 75 n. 16 as translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson in Schaff and Wace, A Select Library o f Nicene ami Post-Nicene Fathers o f the Christian Church, 2nd series, voi. 3 (New York, 1892), 392 n. 5. Richardson believed that the criticism of Augustine was interpolated into Gennadius; see, however, Harnack, 5: 254 n. 4.

THF- C HRONICLER AS AN OBSERVER OF THE CHURC H

161

close conjunction with his judgements on the political and military events of his era, the discussion of those large questions has been deferred to a later part of the chapter. Here we will treat the question of how much the chronicler knew about the ecclesiastical personalities and issues of his time, and how his use of a chronicle format affected his presentation of those matters to the reader. Save for the early period, where he had extensive written sources, the chronicler knew only a little about the church outside Gaul. He was quite well informed about the struggle of true religion against unbelief and heresy in the late fourth century, because Rufinus and Paulinus, the biographer of Ambrose, told him a great deal about that period. Once these two failed him, however, he had little in the way of alternative sources. He tried to update Jerome’s list of the bishops of the great eastern sees, but soon had to give up the attempt.55 Concerning the eastern church he was able to report only the existence of a few prominent bishops and heretics (John Chrysostom; Apollinaris, Nestorius, and Eutyches),56 and a couple of incidents that are harder to classify. He took note of the Origenist controversy of c. 400, and of the Alexandrian decree condemning the use of Origen’s works (c. 45). He recorded the occurrence at Constantinople of an otherwise unknown prodigy (one of several prodigies mentioned in the course of the chronicle): “Constantinople, fearing the conspicuous wrath of God [seen in the form of] fire flashing terrible on top of a cloud, utterly transformed its spirit and escaped to penitence.” (c. 33). These were all events of the early fifth century. For his own time he knew even less. The few easterners he discussed are referred to briefly and in rather stereotyped terms. Thus he said of Chrysostom that he became renowned “for both his words and his deeds.” His entry on Nestorius is a little more informative: this bishop of Constantinople “strayed into a heresy which separated God from Man in Christ.” The Chronicle of 452 does not have the lengthy discussions of eastern heterodoxy, or of the western resistance to it, that we find in Prosper. The anonymous Gaul covered heresy more in the manner of Jerome, with extremely brief notices, usually one to a heresy.57 " Chron. 452 24, an almost literal transcription of Rufinus Hist. eccl. 11. 20, lists the bishops who succeeded to the sees of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch in the 380s. The information supplied by Rufinus did not allow the Gallic chronicler to date the various accessions to the proper years, as Eusebius and Jerome had. s Chron. 452 21 (Apollinaris), 42 (John Chrysostom). 58 (Nestorius), 135 (Eutyches, whose name is not given). 57 Arianism, however, was discussed in five entries (see below, § 6); the dubious career of Augustine, as noted above, was given three.

162

THE GALLIC CHRONICLER 0

His knowledge of other parts of the western church was also \ limited. Ambrose, whom he considered a hero o f the anti-Ar struggle, rated four entries. They record the bishop’s literary effe against that heresy, his sufferings at the hands of the Ari an empr Justina, his discovery of the remains of the martyrs Gervasius a Protasius, and finally his introduction of antiphonal chanting to t west (c. 8, 13-15). But after the time of Ambrose,— or rather, aft Paulinus and Rufinus, his sources for the bishop’s accomplishment dry up — the Italian church is scarcely mentioned. There is chronology of Roman bishops, a very erroneous one, but n discussion of their role in the church. Although a certain hostility t< Roman pretensions was present in the Gallic church in the mid-fiftl century, one is inclined to regard the poor coverage of Italian ana Roman ecclesiastical matters as a sign of ignorance rather than anything more positive.5* Certainly the Chronicler o f 452 seems to have heard almost nothing about the state o f the church in other western provinces. Despite his interest in the question of heresy, we look in vain for any reference to Pelagianism in Britain, Priscillianism in Spain, or even Arianism in Vandal Africa. But, as our previous section illustrates, the Chronicler of452 knew his own Gallic church quite well. He had read its ascetic literature, knew its monks and abbots, and admired those bishops who demonstrated ascetic virtue. His links with the ascetic circles in the south of Gaul are confirmed by his awareness of the now lost theological writings ol'Polemius Silvius, a man well thought of in the circles of Eucherius and Hilary, two bishops mentioned and approved by the chronicler.5'' in three places the chronicler expressed definite op in ion s about a n um ber o f past con troversies in the G allic episcopacy. Such entries are interesting primarily as illustrations o f his point o f view and the limits he imposed on his material; he supplies us with very little ,1 , 445 Pone Leo had humiliated Hilary of Arles, one of the most ■'* As recently a · γ bjsh Gallic churchmen may also have remembered « Ar(es had owed his power to the support of Pope that the ο(·452 was an admirer of Hilary and despised the memory of

■ respected and inllut

Patroclus. See be|‘,W’ ^ ‘’^ ^ h a t he himself did not like Silvius. In chapter 121, he ft is interesting, · ^ u,rm of service in the palace, wrote with a very says, “Silvius, after co P fcconccrning religion.” Details about this apparent disorderly mind no doubt because the Gallic church as a whole agreed with controversy are lost io u ., works jn question to oblivion. On Poleimus and his our chronicler and R egler,.r.v. “ Polemics (9)," R E2I, Pt. I,cols. 1260standing in Hilary ~ ’)lila r'jj Arelatensis 11 (PL 50: 1231-1232); and Mommsen, I26L K r T E i f t c n «il- 7 (Berlin. I« » ), pp- f-.H-6.L5. Gesammelte Mnrtj

n ifi C H R O N IC L E R

AS AN OBSERVER OE TH E CH U R CH

ICO

u n iq u e in f o r m a tio n a b o u t th e e c c le sia stic a l p o litic s o f fifth -c e n tu r v G a u l . 60 T h e f i r s t o f t h e t h r e e entries, chapter twelve, is a very b r i e f discussion of the t r i a l a n d e x e c u t i o n o f P r i s c i l l i a n under the emperor Maximus. As we saw in the previous chapter, this was an incident that stirred up strong feelings."' Priscil/ian’s execution for heresy had called down a storm of condemnation on Hydatius and Itacius, the bishops who had favored it. The critics of Hydatius and Itacius had included men much admired by our chronicler. Sulpicius Severus had shown (in his C h r o n i c l e and the dialogue G a l l u s ) how much Martin h a d disapproved of the handlingof the affair. It is remarkable, then, that the Chronicler o f 4 5 2 restricted his remarks to the short sentence, “At Trier, Manichaeans who had been caught by the great zeal o f M a x i m u s were destroyed.” The s i m p l e , even distorted, p r e s e n t a t i o n b r o o k s n o doubts t h a t Maximus’s zeal against heresy was j u s t i f i e d — i t is c o m p a r a b l e w i t h the emperor’s admirable vigor a g a i n s t b a r b a r i a n s w h i c h i s a t t e s t e d a t c h a p t e r s e v e n . 62 PrisciJIian is s t r i p p e d of his i n d i v i d u a l i t y a n d e v e n h i s n a m e ; h e a n d h i s f o l l o w e r s were simply Manichaeans better p u t o u t o f t h e w a y . T h e c h r o n i c l e r ' s approach to this o l d b u t s t i l l r e m e m b e r e d d e b a t e n o t o n l y t e l l s u s something about him, b u t w a s part o f a h a r d e n i n g o f attitudes toward heresy in the mid-fifth century.6’ Two other entries, chapters sixty and seventy-four, record no­ torious scandals of the early f i f t h century. T h e f o r m e r s a y s , “Proculus the bishop of Marseille was famous. It w a s b y h i s consent that the great investigation of the a l l e g e d a d u l t e r y o f B i shop Remedius was conducted.” The latter castigates the infamous Patroclus f o r daring “to sell the episcopal o f f i c e in dishonorable trade.” Although these two entries seem unconnected, there is a context in w h i c h they are closely related, and this may p r o v i d e the chief clue to where t h e c h r o n i c l e r l i v e d and wrote.64 Proculus and Remigius ( R e m e d i u s ) 66 w e r e long-standing rivals for the primacy of the

His only unique datum is the reference to the adultery trial at Civ on. 452 60 (see below). See chapter lit, § 5. For discussion of'the chronicler’s attitude towards Maximus, see below, § 7. t ' See chapter V, sec. 9. '•4 The following material is drawn largely from Elie Griffe, La Gaule Chrélienne ù t'ipoque romaine, ree. ed. (Paris, 1964-6), voi. 2: dex Gaules au ve siede, pp. 149-151, 198-200, 2.52-256. "Remigius" is the better attested form, but the chronicle (c. 60) calls him "Remedius.” We will use the former name in our discussion.

164

T H E G A L L I C C H R O N I C L E R O F 452

province of Narbonensis II. Already before 398 Proculus had been exercising it, even though his see lay in the neighboring province of Viennensis. The Council of Turin in that year confirmed Proculus’s primacy for his lifetime, and criticized Remigius for ordaining bishops in Narbonensis II — even though he, as bishop of Aix, the capital of the province in question, had some claim to jurisdiction. The apparent feud between the two continued for many years thereafter. During the reign of the usurper Constantine, Heros of Arles and Proculus cooperated to depose Remigius and replace him with a man named Lazarus. After the death of Constantine, Remigius returned to Aix and Proculus lost his primacy in Nar­ bonensis II to Patroclus of Arles. Proculus, however, put up a stubborn resistance to Patroclus and Remigius, who tried to claim parts of the diocese of Marseille for their own sees. Proculus went so far as to elevate two parishes claimed by Arles into new bishoprics. For this defiance Pope Zosimus, an ally of Patroclus, decreed that Proculus was deprived of the administration of his see and that Marseille should be turned over to Patroclus. Proculus ignored both this decree of deposition and a second as well, and kept his see until after the death of Zosimus, when Patroclus lost active papal support. The Chronicler of 452 shows us only a little of this picture, but enough to indicate whose side he supported. His memory of these forty-year old events suggests that he got his information in Marseille and that he himself was from that city. His account, meager as it is, manifests a point of view unlikely elsewhere. Perhaps more significant is the uniqueness of these two entries. No other ecclesiastical scandals, no other disagreements between ortho­ dox bishops are to be found in the chronicle. Surely the writer knew of the infamous end of Patroclus; he was probably aware of the deposition of Heros recorded by Prosper.66 The deposition of Celidonius of Besanon by Hilary of Arles, the dramatic conflict between Hilary and Pope Leo, and the final humbling of Hilary by the bishop of Rome were all recent events in 452.67 But the Chronicler of452 was no scandal-monger. In his two references to troubles in the episcopate, he may be recording events he considered important only because of their prominence in local tradition. He would not have felt any compulsion to dwell on inconvenient matters; since chronicles M' See above, chapter III, § 5. 67 Martin Heinzeimann, Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien (Munich, 1976), pp. 73-84; Ralph W. Mathisen, “Hilarius, Germanus, and Lupus; The Aristocratic Background of the Chelidonius Affair,” Phoenix 33 (1979), 160-169.

R H A D IN G T H R O U G H T H E C H R O N IC L E

165

w e re meant to be brief accounts of the most important events, there w a s no reason he should. It is evident in any case that the Chronicler of 452 was more at h o m e in the Gallic church, and less critical of it, than Prosper. Obviously he was in tune theologically with his compatriots in a way t h a t Prosper never was. But there is another factor as well. Prosper h a d witnessed the scandals of the 410s and 420s, a period when political intrigue had often harmed the church. He remembered with particular passion how the ascetic Heros had been deposed in favor o f the unworthy Patroclus. The Gallic church experienced by the younger Chronicler of 452 was, by contrast, led by men who were b o th outstanding in piety and, by virtue of their aristocratic backgrounds, well able to defend their rights and privileges. He too k n ew about Patroclus but the memory held no terror. Worthier men exercised the power that the interloper Patroclus had seemed to a b u se .6" As we have seen in the case of Maximus and Priscillian, and s h a ll see again later, the Chronicler of 452 was far less touchy than P rosper about the possibility of secular leadership in church affairs. T h e confident leadership of the Gallic bishops at midcentury was undoubtedly one reason why this was so. One of the most important lessons to be gained from our perusal of th e Gallic chronicler’s presentation of ecclesiastical matters, es­ pecially those of Gaul, is that we can expect from him only so much d etail, and so much enlightenment, even when he discusses things th a t were well known to him. He was much more forthright than Prosper in presenting his own point of view. But he was true to his m odel Jerome in keeping his account very brief — there are no long disquisitions, and he gives us few clues with which to fill in the silences of his record.

6. Reading through the Chronicle S o far, we have isolated this or that aspect of the Chronicle of 452 in a n examination of the anonymous author, his intellectual context a n d his historical methods. It is time now to look at the chronicle as a 6 Hilary ol Arles was able to exercise many of the prerogatives claimed by patrodus, and to do so with the general support of the Gallic church. His membership c>t the South Gallic aristocracy was a factor in this; his election had been confirmed by th at same nobility (Grille, I.a (ìnule Chrétienne. 2: 154-164). Patroclus was a client of the patrician Constantius and Pope Zosintus (Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums, I: 344-449, 352, 382-3X5; also Oost. Galla Ptacidia Augusta, pp. 147-149, 172, 211-212).

166

T U B G A L L I C C H R O N I C L E R O F 452

whole, in an attempt to see the chronicler’s past as he saw it. In this section, we will find ourselves discussing chiefly military and political events. This is true to the source itself; even though the Gallic chronicler was writing and continuing a Christian and ecclesiastical history, he devoted the majority of his text to apparently secular material. In this he followed both Jerome’s lead and his own instincts, for he saw the fates of church and empire as intertwined. As we have seen, the Chronicler of 452 smoothly continued the chronicle of Jerome. Not only did he adopt his predecessor’s chronological format, he strove to maintain the unbroken account of largely uniform density seen in Jerome’s later sections: careful planning ensured that there would be no blank years, no physical breaks in the text. In most years there are two or three short notices, seldom longer than three lines of Mommsen’s edition, and usually much shorter. Despite this, and despite the fact that few of its entries relate to one another in any obvious way, the chronicle is not completely without literary qualities. The author’s prose sometimes creates quite striking effects, much in the way Jerome’s had. The chronicle as a whole is rather more vivid than one might expect such a concise account to be. Many of its entries are cast in the present tense, and the reader is carried swiftly over the seven decades covered. The brevity that characterizes the Chronicle of 452 means that in places the work is extremely difficult to interpret. Extraneous detail has been ruthlessly suppressed. Yet the work does not lack personal judgements on the past and the present. We can be quite certain how the chronicler viewed the state of the world in his own time, and what features of the recent past struck him as most noteworthy. The key passage is chapter 138, the first entry under the penultimate year of his account (I Valentinian and Marcian; A.D. 451), a pithy summary of the troubles of the empire at the height of Attila’s power: At this time the condition o f the state appeared to be intensely m iserable, since not even one province was w ithout a barbarian inhabitant, and the unspeakable A rian heresy, which had allied itself with the barbarian nations and perm eated the whole w orld, laid claim to the nam e of C atholic.69 This statement is not, of course, a general conclusion of the sort wc might expect from a modern historian. It was not the place of a ^ “Hac tempestate valde miserabilis rei publicae status apparuit, cum ne una quidem sit absque barbaro cultore provincia et infanda Arrianorum haeresis, quae se nationibus barbaris miscuit, catholicae nomen toto orbe infusa praesumat.”

MAURETANIA

urnmwmvmrn

reading t h r o u g h t h e c h r o n ic l e

167

chronicler to analyze the past, nor was he required to justify any broad generalizations he might offer with appropriate examples and cogent argumentation. The events recorded in chronicles were included because o f their individual prominence, not because they fitted a philosophical or rhetorical scheme. Vet if chapter 138 does not present a reasoned conclusion, it gives us something perhaps more valuable: the personal, even emotional, response of the chronicler to the events of his own lifetime. His reaction was a simple one. The weakening of Roman power had led to an empire infiltrated and threatened by both barbarians and heretics. We are clearly in a different thought-world from that of Prosper of Aquitaine. Not only did the Chronicler of 452 draw a gloomy conclusion unthinkable in Prosper’s account, he reached that conclusion by crossing very different historical terrain. The recent past, as recorded by the Chronicler of 452, is quite unlike that described by Prosper. In this section we will survey the period between the death of Valens and the Hunnic invasion of Italy. A complete rehearsal of the chronicle is neither necessary nor desirable. Rather, we will con­ centrate on those events which contributed to the general decline of empire and religion lamented by the chronicler, in the hope that we can identify what he found most important in his past. The Chronicle o f 452 begins with a detailed account of the era of Theodosius I. We have seen that Prosper treated that period almost perfunctorily, including only the most momentous political events and a few isolated incidents from ecclesiastical history, before launching into a more detailed record of the period he had experienced as an adult. For the Chronicler of 452, the Theodosian era, although no doubt beyond living memory, was alive with significance, and as rich in memorable matter as any other time covered by his chronicle. His rather vivid description of the years 379-395 owes its existence to the availability of sources, especially the Ecclesiastical History of Rufinus. Yet we must not think of our chronicler as an automaton, writing down whatever was set before him. On the contrary, his objective was to eliminate the superfluous, to include only the essential, in the manner of his predecessors. His full discussion of the closing years of the fourth century is a sign of the importance he assigned to that period. These decades, according to the Chronicler of452, were a period of great gains for the true church, particularly in the struggle against Arianism. Although Ambrose, Martin, and John of Lycopolis were

168

TUI·

G A L L IC

C'HRONK’l-bR oF 4~

pmentioned resen ted a sasa e 'Tllnent churchm en, and A m b ro se w as s p e c i f i c a l l y l e a d i n g r o l e s to\ a m p , o n o i'o r th o d o x y , t h e c h r o n i c l e r c o n c e d e d t p c b oth G r a t t a t i a n tllC holders o f i m p e r i a l o f f i c e . F o r in sta n c e , su pp ort ■ , W e u s u r P e r M a x i m u s w h o k i l l e d h i m a r e s h o w n a s heretics. W e a r e Μ Γ h a i t h again st A ri an s a n d o t h e r s u p p o r t e d relie' ° * a( G r a t i a n w as an e m p e r o r w h o “ v i g o r o u s l y th in gs” (c . 3)· j t IOn ,a nd ,w as wed d i s p o s e d t o t h e c h u r c h e s in a /i (c. 8). M axim u s ° rilim t h a t A m b rose w r o t e h i s a n t i - A r i a n t r a c t s w as h i s l a u d a b l e CVen P r ‘O s c w o n h y , r e l i g i o u s p o l i c y . I t 0 -e ., Prisci//,™ , m a i cc to the execu tion o f the “ M a n i c h a e a n s ’* y .c a lo u s

at Trier i c · , 2 h L eading the A rian Valentini-, rt « ' Jus t , na> m oth er o f G r a t i a n ’s y o u n g b ish o p A m b ro se „ ° ’ H cr a t t a c l c s on t h e c h u r c h o f M i l a n a n d i t s in sp ired M a x im u s part,cu,ar,>' rem em bered fc. 1 3 ) . H e r p o l i c i e s s i d e w a s a n o t h e r ^ o v a l t^ l l o w e r ^)

b ro th e r

h im a p la u sib le p r e t e x t T

V a i e f , n i a n 11 i n ^ a l y , o r a t l e a s t g a v e

T h e o d o s i jV V CXPa h 'S reaim · ’" T he lenO irS™ ^ ?-*p ,ace, d o m i n a t i n g t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f t h e p i e t y unm atched. Η ι 'Π ι ° ^Us pow cr w as u n d ou b ted fc. 2) an d his c h r o n i c l e r cou /d c a l l h' ‘^Γ ^ 10 m e m o r y w a s s u c h t h a t t h e nam e him . A fter his f^ . d evou t em Peror>” w ithou t n e e d i n g t o c h ro n ic le.

son

f V a l c n t i n i a n U t " o ‘ ,, 1c saVa£e crune committed at e x a m p le o f p e n h e n e e the c '('Vcns. by an exception*./ ru le rs (α ^ 2 2 ρ

t

th c g a ,n s m a d e b y th e h e re tic s u n d e r p r e v io u s

Ü

a/iotted to the C a t h o l i c s

'

cast and west, were by 'Ppet of the churches, which were

A Ihird m a j o r v i c t o r y l o r t h c fain, ir a c c d Theodo™,·, ru)e- , ft„ tcrnblc MgrI vrfKd, looted in all way, lite a column- 4 " » 4 mil," ■f llu' ,e m P'“ « ·■ « P d l lo d d o w n s ,A t o n d r /a w h,cl, » a , file m „st a n e e m and ,emplt. „ r S c ™

Z

S

m chron. 452 /6: “Maximus indignum dicens contra ecclesiae statum agi locum dirumpendi, quod cum Valentiniano iunxcraU foederis invenit...."

KbADiNG THROUGH THT C'HRONIC'M·:

169

just like a column was holding up an idolatry about to collapse (c. 28).” If the reign of Theodosius was marred by the appearance of the h e re sy o t A p o l l i n a r i s (c. 2 1 ), a n d a d i s p u t e b e t w e e n c a th o lic b is h o p s

over who.should have the sees retaken from the Arians(c. 29), neither ol these incidents was of a sort to affect the reputation of such a pious ruler. His c r e d i t i n h e a v e n w a s g r e a t , a s was demonstrated by his s u c c e s s i n t h e c i v i l waragainst E u g e n i u s f c . 3 0 ) : “Theodosius crossed over to Italy to avenge the death o f Valentinian and to put down the usurpation o f Eugenius. The elements themselves, through t h e o p e n l a v o r o f G o d , c o n s p i r e d i n t h a t vengeance.” The early years of Arcadiusand H o n o r i u s , t h e s o n s a n d s u c c e s s o r s of Theodosius, were marked by a number of challenges to both the c h u r c h a n d t h e state. Yet positive developments outnumbered the n e g a t i v e ones. I t was the era o f t h e divisive O r i g e n i s t c o n t r o v e r s y , o f Pelagius and his heresy, of Augustine’s countless b o o k s , b u t a l s o o f Prudentius’s brilliant Christian poetry, Paulinus of Nola’s example of the r e n u n c i a t i o n o f wealth, and o f Martin’s liberation from the body and Severus’s c e l e b r a t i o n s o f h i s m a s t e r ' s a c h i e v e m e n t s . 71 I t was in these years, too, that “ the temples o f a n c i e n t s u p e r s t i t i o n w e r e pulled down throughout the Roman world (c. 40).” in the political s p h e r e t h e r e w a s a r e v o l t i n Africa led by Gildo; however, Stilicho the i n a g i s t e r m i l i t u m (who had earlier been shown e l i m i n a t i n g h i s rival Rufinus), “killed G i l d o i n Mauretania and b r o u g h t A f r i c a back t o i t s original jurisdiction” (c. 38). S e r i o u s trouble a p p e a r e d only in the tenth year of Arcadius and fionorius. Here t h e C h r o n i c l e r o f 4 5 2 first recorded a great barbarian invasion of the empire (c. 5 0 ) : “ T h e s a v a g e outbreak of a b a r b a r i a n r i s i n g lay heavily on Italy, when Radagaisus, king of the C)oths, c r o s s e d t h e b o r d e r o f Italy bringing devastation.” This attack was fated to be turned back by S t i l i c h o ; c h a p t e r f i f t y - t w o describes his “distinguished victory” in unusual detail. Nevertheless, the invasion was a destructive one, laying waste many cities, and also marked a t u r n i n g p o i n t i n religious history ( c . 51): From this p o in t the A rians, w ho had been pu t to flight far from the R om an w orld, began to rise up with the support o f the b a rb arian peoples w hom they h ad jo in ed .

Scarcely had Stilicho destroyed Radagaisus, when he himselflet in ,j new set o f e n e m i e s ( c . 5 5 ) : ” Chron. 452 37 (Prudentius), 41 (Paulinus o f Nola), 43 (Martin's death), 44 ( pelagius), 45 (Origcnism). 47 (Augustine's books), 48 (Severus’s books on Martin).

Τ Η I- G A L L I C C H R O N I C L E R O F 4 5 2

The madness of hostile peoples tore Gaul to pieces. The admission [of the peoples] was caused by Stilicho, who was indignant that the royal power was denied to his son.

Stilicho was deservedly executed for his treachery (c. 57) — his execution being preceded by a famous prodigy — but the damage was done. In the words of the chronicler, “At this time Roman power was completely humbled by a multitude of enemies who were gaining strength” (c. 61). He followed this general statement with the catalogue of troubles we have seen before, in our discussion of his sources (c. 62-65; year XVI [Arcadius and] Honorius): Britain, Gaul and Spain suffered from the attacks of barbarians and usurpers. “ Finally, Rome itself, the capital of the world, suffered most foully from the depredations of the Goths.” During the 410s the Chronicler of 452 concentrated on events in Gaul, interspersing political disasters with prodigies and the oc­ casional ecclesiastical notice.72 He marked the fall of Constantine, the second plundering of the country by barbarians, this time the Goths, and the revolt of Jovinus.73 It was only after this usurpation that the forces of legitimate authority made something of a comeback. Chapter 69 records that “ Athaulf, who was commanding the Goths after Alaric, was turned away from an alliance with Jovinus by the diligence of that vigorous man, Dardanus, who alone did not yield to the tyrant.” This led to the destruction of Jovinus and his supporters,74 but even that victory was an occasion for sorrow. Jovinus’s downfall was associated in the chronicler’s mind with the sack of a South Gallic city (c. 71): “Valence, the noblest city of the Gallic provinces, was stormed by the Goths after the fleeing Jovinus had betaken himself to that city.” The next few years (years XX-XXIII of Honorius) saw famine in Gaul (c. 72), and the unsuccessful revolt of Heraclian, the Count of Africa (c. 75), but also the beginning of a Gallic settlement. Chapter seventy-three records, rather baldly, that “Aquitaine was handed over to the Goths.” According to the chronicle, AthaulPs death followed, and Honorius’s sister was returned by the Goths and married to Constantius (c. 77). This is, rather surprisingly, the First mention of either husband or wife. Constantius, portrayed in both 12 Prodigies and natural disasters: Chron. 452 72 (famine in Gaul), 82 (Solar eclipse), 84 (a sign in heaven). Ecclesiastical developments: ibid. 74 (Patroclus’s crimes), 81 (the rise of th e praedestinati), 83 (the accession of Pope Sixtus), 86 (the four famous Gallic abbots); see section 5. 73 Chron. 452 66 (Constantine), 67 (Gaul plundered), 68 (Jovinus). 74 The deaths of Jovinus’s brothers Sebastian and Sallust are noted at c. 70.

rea d ing t h r o u g h t h e c h r o n ic l e

171

official propaganda and independent contemporary accounts as the chief architect of peace in Gaul, is here restricted to a subsidiary role. In the Chronicle of 452, his sole contribution was to push the Goths back into their allotted territory when they again tried to move on the death of Athaulf (c. 78). Peace was now restored to Gaul, but it was not the end of trouble for the empire as a whole. The account, here and there broken by notices reporting the excellent or damnable deeds of various churchmen, continues to be dominated by bad news in the political and military spheres. Another usurper, a second Maximus, was able to seize Spain (c. 85).7i Then Honorius’s chosen successor, Constan­ tius, died eight months after being raised to the purple, and left as his only heir the young Valentinian (c. 88). Although Honorius was able to defeat Maximus and display him captive at his tricennial celebrations in Rome, the end of his reign was of a piece with what had gone before, as we see in chapters 90 through 93: 90 XXXI

Placidia was detected plotting against her brother, and sent away in exile to Rome. 91 XXXII Honorius died in Ravenna. 92 John rose f r o m the first desk of the notaries to seize the realm, which was not his by any right. 93 He left the empire wounded by many disasters.76

The Chronicler of 452, like Prosper, recalled the usurpation of John as an event of major importance, and gave a picture of its consequences reminiscent of his predecessor’s account.77 There are 75 PLRE 2: 744-745 suggests that this Maximus (7) is a Spanish usurper different from and later than the Maximus (4) installed by Gerontius in 409 (see Prosp. 1243, 1245 and above, chapter III, § 5). There are some problems in establishing the career of Maximus (e.g. Prosper clearly states that Maximus was spared by Honorius, while Sozomen reports that Honorius executed a Maximus), but the Chronicle of 452, with its erratic chronology for the years before 425 (see above § 3), is not strong evidence for the existence of a second Spanish usurper in Honorius’s time. 76 On this entry, see below, § 7. n The chronicler recorded the death of the praetorian prefect Exuperantius in Gaul (c. 97; Prosper 1285), the attack on Boniface in Africa (c. 96; Prosper 1286), and the alliance of Placidia and Theodosius II, at this point the sole legitimate emperor, to topple the rebel regime (c, 95; Prosper 1286). The appearance of Aetius with an army of Huns, come too late to support John, is also here (c. 100; Prosper 1288). Note that c. 96 says “Sit-isvuldus ad Africam contra Bonifatium properavit." Schmidt (p. 57-58) suggested that the Chronicler of 452 remembered Segisvult's expedition to Africa (in 427 according to Prosper c. 1294), but by transferring his name to John’s expedition of 425 conflated the two events. Oost (Galla Placidia Augusta, p. 187n. 68) rejects this a r g u m e n t . However Clover (in “Getsertc the Statesman," (Ph.D. diss., U. of Chicago, 1966), p- 9 n. 1) argued that the chronicler conflated the defeat of Castinus by the Vandals in 422 with a defeat suffered by the Sueves at the same hands in 429 to produce c. 107 (A.D. 430) which says: “Viginti ferme milia militum in Hispaniis contra Vandalos pugnantium caesa.” Considering the chronicler’s limited knowledge of events outside Gaul, I am inclined to accept both Schmidt’s and Clover’s suggestions.

172

TUI·: GALLIC CHRONICI.LR OL 452

differences: the Gallic chronicler ignored the role of Castinus (quite forgotten in 452) and emphasized the lasting damage that resulted from the usurpation. It was at this time that Carthage, for the first time since the Roman conquest, was refortified, which made the city a potential base for rebellion (c. 98).78 Nor did he praise the defeat of John as the ‘marvelous victory” of Prosper’s description: rather, at chapter ninety-nine, he recalled that “ Ravenna was devastated by looting when John was defeated and killed by the eastern army.” That doleful victory established Valentinian III on the throne, and gave his mother Placidia the royal power she had long coveted. There was also a new series of wars against the barbarians. Two victories of Aetius, over the Goths at Arles and the Iuthungi, are noted.79 Other wars, according to the chronicler, did not go as well. At chapter 107 (under VIII Theodosius II, A.D. 430), he recorded that “ Nearly twenty thousand soldiers were killed in Spain fighting against the Vandals.” This appears to refer to the defeat of Castinus, which actually took place in 422.80In the chronicler’s reckoning, this failure of Roman arms led directly to the Vandal invasion of Africa, which is placed immediately afterwards (c. 108). It will be recalled that Prosper’s discussion of the late 420s and the early 430s, which was written in 433, focussed on internal conflicts between the generals Felix, Boniface, and Aetius, to the exclusion of almost everything else of political import. The complexities of these rivalries, so important at the time, were not worth remembering in the Gaul of 452. The chronicler simplified the story of these years to a record of Roman gains and losses in the face of alien enemies. The single exception to this is the multi-entry account of the final struggle between Boniface and Aetius (c. 109-116): 109 VIIII 110 111 112 X

After Aetius had presented his consular games, he made 1 432’1 way for Bomlace (who had been called out of Africa by the queen), and retreated to fortifications [Anna! describing the “extreme cold” that “ ruined the health of many people.” ] Boniface was wounded in his combat with Aetius· he was victorious but withdrew to die. ’ 433 After the battle Aetius betook himselfto the Hunnic nation whom Rugtla then ruled. He asked for help and returned to Roman soil.

7* See below, § 7. ™ Chron. 452 101 (Valentinian made emperor), 102 (Aetius at Arles), 103 (Placidia in power), 106 (Iuthungi). *° See above, n. 77.

READING THROUGH Till: CHRONICI.I;

113 114 115 XI 116

The Goths were summoned by the Romans to give aid. [Biographical entry concerning Germanus of Auxerre.) Aetius was received into favor. After peace had been made with Rugila, king of the Huns, he died, and Bleda succeeded him.

17.1

434

This civil war was remembered when others were not because its resolution had a permanent effect on the politics of the western empire: it confirmed Aetius’s hold on power. Note, however, the chronicler’s strong interest in the involvement of various nonRoman peoples. As in Prosper’s chronicle, the participation of the Huns was prominently mentioned; also the aid rendered by the Goths on this occasion to the “Romans,” i.e., Boniface and Placidia. For the remainder of the 430s, the Gallic chronicler’s attention was focussed on his own country. In this period Aetius is shown to have exercised effective leadership in countering threats to Roman power. At chapter 118, our chronicler recalled “ the memorable war against the Burgundian people...in which nearly the whole people, along with their king, was wiped out by Aetius,” a summary which contains none of the puzzling ambiguity of Prosper’s discussion of the same event.81 A dangerous rebellion was put down at the same time (c. 117, 119): XII

XIII

Farther Gaul withdrew from Roman society, following Tibatto, the leader of the rebellion. During this outbreak nearly all the slaves of Gaul conspired with the Bacaudae. The uprising of the Bacaudae quieted down after Tibatto was captured and the rest of the leaders of the revolt were either taken or killed.

435 437

Aetius’s name was not mentioned here, but there can be little doubt that the credit for this victory was meant to be his, for soon after, the chronicler summarized this period of successful campaigns thus (c. 123; A.D.440): “Aetius returned to Italy after the tumults of the Gallic provinces had been subdued.” Given the emphasis on “ the tumults of Gaul,” there is a remarkable, not to say astonishing, omission from the chronicle in this period. There is no mention whatever of the Gothic war o f436439. One can scarcely credit that the chronicler was not aware ofthat conflict; it was surely closer to him in South Gaul than the war with the Burgundians or the suppression of the Bacaudic revolt. The omission is one of the most curious and interesting features of the Sec above, chapter III, $ 6.

174

T H E G A L L IC C H R O N IC L E R O F 4 5 Ì

entire chronicle, but our discussion of its significance will be deferred for the moment. The return of Aetius to Italy seemed to mark a turning point for our chronicler. The very next entry, chapter 124, is the first o f ten that describe catastrophes and unwelcome developments. These ten entries, unbroken by any reference to the church or other digression, form a series reminiscent of the catalogue of disasters recorded at XVI Honorius: [A.D.] The deserted lands of the city of Valence were given to be 440 divided by those Alans whom Sambida commanded. The British provinces, which up to this time had suffered 441 various defeats and catastrophes, were reduced to Saxon rule. The Alans, whom Aetius the patrician had given the lands 442 127 of farther Gaul to divide with the inhabitants, subdued with warfare those who resisted them and obtained possession of the land by force after expelling the owners. 128 XX Sapaudia was given to the remaining Burgundians to be 443 divided with the inhabitants. 129 XXI Carthage, which had been captured by the Vandals, with 444 disaster and deplorable loss to all of Africa, threw off the power of the Roman empire. From this time, indeed, it was possessed by the Vandals. 130 X X I I Thrace was shaken by a Hunnic invasion. 445 131 XXIII Bleda, the king of the Huns, was killed by the deceit of his 446 brother Attila, who succeeded him. 132 XXIIII New disaster arose again in the east. Not less than seventy 447 cities were ravaged by the looting of the Huns because no troops were brought by westerners. 133 XXV Eudoxius, by profession a doctor, a man of evil but 448 disciplined intelligence, was indicted in the Bacaudic revolt of that time, and took refuge with the Huns. 124 [XVII] [125] 126 XVIII XVIIII

The chronicler saw this decade as one of uninterrupted disaster, of the loss of Roman power vis-à-vis the barbarians, with a particular emphasis on their settlements within Gaul itself. From about 445, however, the threat of the Huns began to overshadow all else. The chronicler’s record of Hunnic attacks on Thrace is remarkable because it is his only sign of concern for or awareness of the state of the eastern empire, and is surely included because it formed a prelude to Attila’s invasions of Gaul and Italy. At this point the catalogue of Roman defeats is interrupted by a few entries of other sorts: the deaths of the outstanding bishops Eucherius and Hilary, the death of Piacidia, and the rise o f the

f Hl : C H R O N I C L E R A N D T H E C R I S I S O F E M P I R E

175

fjutychian heresy, which, disgracefully, involved the emperor Theo­ dosius II and proved his downfall:82 An abominable heresy was being set in motion by a certain archimandrite. Theodosius, who was showing favor to him, died, after passing forty-seven years in the imperial office. Marcian replaced him. The chronicler returned to militaiy disaster at the end of his account. After offering, in chapter 138, the already quoted summary of the woes of the empire, he described the fearful events o f451-452 (c. 139-141):

39 140 II 141

fA.D.J fl Valentinian and Mercian] Attila entered Gaul and demanded a wife as if she were his 451 by right. There he both inflicted and received a serious defeat, and withdrew to his own country. Many signs were seen this year. 452 After receiving an unexpected defeat in Gaul, the infuriated Attila headed for Italy, which the inhabitants, terrified by fear alone, left undefended.

With this, the chronicle concludes.

7. The Chronicler and the Crisis o f Empire Our quick survey of the Gallic chronicle does much to explain the dire conclusion the author drew from recent history. He wrote in a time of great crisis and uncertainty, which his knowledge of the past led him to believe was merely the culmination o f many years of imperial decline. Yet despite its loose organization, the account is susceptible to further analysis, which reveals a number o f interesting things about the chronicler’s point of view. If we may begin with a rather obvious point, the chronicler blamed the troubles of his own lifetime primarily — if not solely — on the barbarians, who had invaded the empire on numerous occasions and more recently had begun to settle within it. It would scarcely be an exaggeration to say he hated the barbarians. Certainly he feared them. He often used the very word “barbarian” in the pejorative sense so seldom found in Prosper’s chronicle. Approximately a cjuarter of our chronicler’s notices concern actions of the barbarians

jftistina.

(Eucherius and Hilary), 155 (Theodosius II), 135 (Placidia). ^ emeant as a parallel toe. 19, which reports the death of thehercticaì

176

I H li G A L L I C C H R O N I C L E R O F

4 5 2

or actions against them. In these entries, we often Find such words a s vastatio, depraedatio, ruina, clades, and rabies. The defeats that the empire had suffered over years had, b e sid e s immediate destruction, a twofold resuit, according to chapter 138 o f " the chronicle. “Not even one province” was without unw elcom e barbarian settlers, and the Arian heresy, thanks to barbarian support, had spread itself throughout the whole world. The chronicler’s anxiety about the spread of Arianism shaped h is ecclesiastical account in an obvious way. All other heresies w ere allotted a single entry each. The chronicler specifically mentioned Arianism in five notices, and referred to it indirectly in three more.83 Most concern the successful struggle against Arianism in the time o f Theodosius I and were placed in the early parts o f the chronicle. These entries were not included from antiquarian interest: the drama of Arian resurgence in the fifth century gained a certain poignancyin the perspective of those earlier events. The chronicler was fortunate to have sources for that conflict, o f course, but it is clear that Arianism was relevant to him in a way that no other heresy was. The intense interest in Arianism manifested here appears to us as a presage of the decades to come, when Arian regimes would extend their domination over southern Gaul. But the precise events and concrete circumstances that inspired his dread o f an Arian revival are not recorded. The fact that he did not even allude to Geiseric’s persecutions makes one suspect that the chronicler felt threatened by developments closer to hand; as we shall see below, nearby dangers were more real to him than those farther away. He said a great deal about the deplorable settlement of barbarians on Roman soil. Looking over the record, we see at once that he was most concerned with those settlements that took place in Gaul in the 44Os. We are fortunate that this was so, for chapters 124,127 and 128 of his account tell us almost all we know about the introduction of federates into that country during the mid-fifth century. He allows us to see that it was a process encouraged and authorized by the Roman government. In each of the three cases, he says that the barbarians were given lands in a particular district. Alans commanded by a man named Sambida were allotted “deserted lands” (deserta rura) o f the city of Valence — probably lands that were not paying tax and were therefore forfeit to the government.84 “Aetius the patrician” had KJ Chron. 452 8, 13, 22, 51, 138; chapters 16, 19, and 25 relate incidents clearly related to the controversy in the time oI Theodosius. M Golfari, Barbarians and Romans, A.15. 418-584 (Princeton, 1980), 112-113.

THE

c h r on ic le r a n d

t h e CRISIS OF

em pire

177

settled another group of Alans in “ Farther Gaul.” When these Alans subsequently met resistance from the inhabitants, they “subdued with warfare those who resisted them,” and “obtained possession of the land by force.” In a third incident, Sapaudia (roughly but not precisely modern Savoy)85 was granted to those Burgundians who had survived the massacre of the previous decade; again the district was “ to be divided with the inhabitants.” Despite the fact that the settlements were the result of official government policies, and by the chronicler’s own account were usually peaceful, we cannot doubt that they were very unwelcome to him. The context in which they are reported, among more dramatic defeats in distant provinces, re­ inforces the lament of chapter 138 about the presence of barbarians in the provinces. When we look at the rest of his record of imperial disaster, we are impressed by how little the chronicler seems to know or care about events outside Gaul. Certainly he was attached to the idea of a universal empire, equating it with the whole world at one point,86 but most of that world never entered into his account. He knew almost nothing about the state of the eastern half of the empire. Spain, too, was scarcely mentioned, despite the fact that it was much closer to hand. Even his somewhat more extensive treatment of Africa and Britain confirms that his concern for distant lands was rather abstract. Africa appears in the chronicle in several places. Most of these entries are very brief or mention the country only incidentally. For instance, the prodigy preceding Stilicho’s death is placed by the chronicle in Utica (c. 56). Similarly chapter seventy-five, in reporting the death of the usurper Heraclian, identifies him as Count of Africa. More substantially, the Gallic chronicler had heard of the revolt of Gildo (ignored by Prosper), and thought it worthy of two entries (c. 36, 38): Africa was stirred up to rebellion, and Gildo withdrew from the Romans their customary tribute. Stilicho the m a g i s t e r m i l i t u m killed Gildo in Mauretania and brought Africa back to its original jurisdiction.

He was also interested enough to record, among the other troubles of the empire c. 410, the death of a certain Count John, who was killed "·' See Pierre Duparc, “La Sapaudia,’' Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Paris. Comples rentius (1958): pp. 371-583. Μ Chron. 452 138.

THE GALLIC CHRONICLER OF 452

in Africa “by the people.”87 The conflict for the possession of Africa during the time of the later usurper John merited a brief entry, the rebuilding of the walls of Carthage another, and of course the Vandal invasion of Africa and their taking of Carthage were mentioned among the major disasters of recent times.88 Perhaps surprisingly, he said nothing more about Africa or the Vandals thereafter, omitting their raids on Sicily and other parts of the empire, the abortive Roman campaign against them in441,evenGeiseric’s persecution of Catholics. The lack of detail about recent events in Africa would scarcely be noteworthy by itself. What is remarkable, however, is that the Chronicler of 452 viewed Africa not so much as a Roman province subjected to barbarian conquest and oppressed by heretical rulers (as did Prosper), but as a country once possessed by the Romans and now a threat to their power. This attitude is most evident in chapters 98 and 129: 98 (A.D. 425) Carthage was surrounded by a wall. This city had been forbidden by the sanction of the Romans to be forti­ fied since the old city was destroyed, lest it afford a refuge for rebellion. 129 (A.D. 444) Carthage, having been captured by the Vandals, with disaster and deplorable loss to all of Africa, threw off the power o f the Roman empire. From this time, indeed, it is possessed by the Vandals.

It is almost as if the reader is being shown Hannibal’s Carthage resurrected: first the city is given back its walls and then, less than twenty years later, Carthage throws off Roman rule. The Vandals are almost, if not quite, incidental. The danger of an enemy-held Africa to Roman power was more important to the chronicler than the actual identity of the enemies. Indeed, if we look back over earlier entries devoted to the country, the theme of African restiveness seems to run through the majority. That restiveness, and not the fate of the African provincials, is what interested the chronicler. In the eyes of the man from Gaul, Africa was little more than a symbol of the vulnerability of the Roman empire in a now unfriendly worldMuch the same can be said about the treatment of Britain, despite the fact that the chronicler has preserved for us some unique information. Only he apprises us that Magnus Maximus won 87 Seeck, s.v. “Johannes (7),” RE 9, Pt. 2, cols. 1744-1745. ** Chron. 452 96 (John’s attack), 98 (walls), 108 (Vandals attack Africa), 129(lossof Carthage, postdated five years to 444).

T H E CHRONICLER AND THE CRISIS OF EMPIRE

179

victories over the Piets and Scots before he went to Gaul to fight G ratian . Even more valuable is his brief discussion o f the loss o f Britain. He tells us, alm ost casually, that Britain, after a series o f unspecified disasters, had been finally lost to the barbarians and had fa llen under Saxon rule around 441. We know from later evidence th a t the Saxons did not conquer all o f Britain in the fifth century. But th is notice is important nonetheless. It demonstrates that Bede’s w ell-know n eighth-century chronology for the adventus Saxonum (p la ced by him in 446 or later) is too late. Something occurred about a decade before the chronicler wrote that'appeared to mark the transition between a Britain harassed by enemies and suffering from d isaster, and a Britain finally subjugated by the SaXons. That this e v e n t seemed relatively recent to our chronicler is shown by his disagreem ent with his source for the early fifth century, the Narratio tie imperatoribus domus Valentinianae et Theodosianae. The author o f t h e Narratio had associated the loss o f Britain with the reign of H o n o r iu s, perhaps with the earlier part thereof: in his summary o f H o n o r iu s’s time he said that “ Britain was forever removed from the R o m a n name.” The Chronicler o f 452 knew that Britain had suffered m u c h during the rule o f Honorius, and said that the Saxons had laid i t waste. But he did not believe that Britain was “ forever lost” as a resu lt. In his view, that was a far more recent development.89 Although the chronicler’s entries about Britain are important to us b e c a u se o f the absence o f better accounts, it would be a mistake to ex aggera te his concern for that far-off land. He mentioned events th e r e only four times, always in a wider context: twice in his account o f the career o f Magnus Maximus, and twice more in his summary d escrip tio n s o f the losses suffered by the empire around 410 and d u r in g the 430s and 440s. He had no profound interest in Britain and p o sse sse d few details about conditions there. He simply invoked the n a m e o f Britain to supplement his picture o f a defeated empire in the p r o c e s s o f disintegration. H is selection o f events shows that he judged the fortunes o f the e m p ir e , and the damage done to it by the barbarians, largely in r e la tio n to the state o f his own homeland. He spoke as a man o f the “ Seven Provinces” (roughly south and southeastern Gaul), where

* For a more detailed discussion, see Muhlberger, “The Gallic Chronicler,” and Ian Wood, “The End of Roman Britain: Continental evidence and parallels,” in Cjildas: New Approaches, ed. M. Lapidge and D. Dumville (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1 984) pp. (-25. Thomas O’Sullivan (in The De Excidio of Gildas, its Authenticity and Ifa te (Leiden, 1978), pp. 174-175) comes to a similar conclusion.

T H E G A L L I C C H R O N I C L E R O F 452

settled government, under the authority of the praetorian prefect, still existed.90 Even Gallia Ulterior— Farther Gaul, the northern and central regions only intermittently under the control of the govern­ ment in Arles — entered his account only when events there seemed to bode ill for order in the south. Thus we are told about Tibatto’s Bacaudic revolt in the north because its consequence was that “ nearly all the slaves of Gaul conspired with the Bacaudae.” The eviction of northern landowners by unruly barbarian allies rated a notice because it illustrated the dangers of the kind of settlements that had recently been established in nearby Sapaudia and in Valence, a southern city in which the chronicler had a special interest. Attila’s invasion, too, affected mainly Farther Gaul, but its import for every inhabitant of the empire could not be mistaken. These entries nearly exhaust our chronicler’s coverage of northern Gaul for the period after 425; he said little more about earlier decades. He told his readers nothing whatever about the movements of the Franks, nor did he mention the repeated sacks of Trier, the former imperial capital, about which Salvian, his compatriot and contemporary, was so well informed.91 These were not important to him. He was preoccupied with events that might seem undramatic to us, such as the entirely peaceful barbarian settlements in Sapaudia and Valence, but which to him were near and threatening. Perhaps the most important example of how the chronicler’s evaluation of the barbarian menace reflects his South Gallic environment is his emphasis on the two gentes most active in his vicinity, the Goths, who had long been settled in Aquitaine, and the Huns, who had been used extensively by Aetius in his Gallic campaigns of the 430s and who had in the previous year re-entered Gaul as enemies. The great majority of entries that mention foreign tribes concern one of these two peoples. Only their kings are named.92 Furthermore, when we look closely at the chronicler’s account, it becomes evident that his entire presentation of the history of the Goths and the Huns was shaped by the political realities of the year 452. He knew that both peoples had long been intimately involved in Roman politics, and also realized that opposing one of *' On the “Seven Provinces," and the relationship between the Arles government and "Farther Gaul,” see Matthews, Western Aristocracies, pp. 333-338. Salvian, De gubernatione Dei 6.8, 13-15 (MGH: AA, 1: 74, 79-81). *2 Sambida.the Alan noted at c. 124, is not specifically called a king. The chronicler names among the Goths Radagaisus, Alaric and Athaulf, but none of the federate kings of more recent times. The Hunnic monarchs mentioned are Rugila(Rua), Bleda (whom he makes Attila’s predecessor rather than his colleague) and Attila.

'TUF CHRONICLER AND THE CRISIS OE EMPIRE

1ST

the two had often meant alliance with the other. The chronicler’s terror of the Huns had affected his view of the Goths, and led him to soften his picture of Gothic-Roman relationships in the past in a curious way. To demonstrate this point it will be necessary to survey what the chronicler said about both the Goths and the Huns. The Huns and Goths were introduced into the Chronicle of 452 soon after the chronicler lost his chief fourth-century source, Rufinus o f Aquileia. The Huns appeared at A.D. 395 as a key factor in the briefly summarized struggle between the competing regents of the empire, Stilicho and Flavius Rufinus, important supporters of the too-ambitious Rufinus (c. 34). The Goths came on the scene a few years later with the invasion of Italy by Radagaisus. Radagaisus’s armies are presented as the first major invaders of the western empire, causing destruction in Italy (c. 50). It is from this time, too, th a t the chronicler marked the rise of the Arians with barbarian support (c. 51). Here he slanted his presentation by omitting some salient facts. Radagaisus, a notorious pagan, was neither an Arian n o r the first Gothic general to bring a hostile force into the West. Alaric, the Arian leader of the Visigoths, invaded Italy not once but twice, in 401 and 403, before Radagaisus’s attempt in 405.93 It seems th a t the chronicler chose to shift the blame for this first great attack b y barbarians and Arian heretics from the Visigoths of Alaric — the G oths who later came to Gaul — to Radagaisus. Radagaisus’s defeat is described in unusual detail, with emphasis on the prominent role played by the Huns (c. 52): A fter m any cities were laid w aste, Radagaisus fell: the division o f his arm y into three parts under rival leaders gave the Rom ans an opportunity to strike back. In a distinguished victory Stilicho, after diverting a third part o f the enemy with the help o f the H uns, destroyed the arm y in a massacre. This great victory was soon followed by Stilicho’s treachery, and th e empire was overwhelmed by foreign enemies. But the Gallic chronicler was primarily interested in the Visigoths, because they were the great danger to peace in Gaul. He showed his readers how, a fte r they had sacked Rome, Athaulf led the Goths to Gaul, where they looted an already devastated country, and then allied themselves w ith the usurper Jovinus. The breaking of this combination was for The Chronicler of 511 did know of Alaric’s invasion (c. 540). It is unlikely, However, that he is preserving information from a fuller Chronicle of 452. The earlier chronicler’s treatment of Radagaisus clearly presents his invasion as the first, or at least the first important invasion of the Western provinces.

THE GALLIC CHRONICLER OF 452

the chronicler a turning point, one of the few praiseworthy deeds of a dark period (c. 69): Athaulf, who was commanding the Goths after Alaric, was turned away from an alliance with Jovinus by the diligence of that vigorous man, Dardanus, who alone did not yield to the tyrant. But if Dardanus’s tactics were effective, the Goths remained dangerous allies. Although Jovinus was hunted down, the city of Valence suffered greatly in the process. The Goths were rewarded for their service by the grant of Aquitaine; a final defeat by Constantius constrained them to stay there.94 During the 420s and 430s, the Goths and Huns reappeared in the chronicle as the result of Roman civil wars. The first instance is at the year 425: the Huns followed Aetius into Italy in support of John’s usurpation. The chronicler did not bother to explain, as did Prosper, how Aetius used his Hunnic forces to obtain a pardon from Placidia and Valentinian, but merely showed the result of the pardon, Aetius’s expedition to rescue Arles from a new Gothic attack. In 433 another Roman civil war brought the two peoples into direct opposition. Aetius, replaced and then defeated by Boniface, turned once again to the Huns for support. His enemies, whom the chronicler considered the legitimists, summoned the Goths to their aid. The situation of Stilicho’s time was reversed: now the Goths were called on to defend Italy from invasion (cf. c. 52, 113). Following this crisis, Aetius returned to imperial favor and a treaty was concluded with the Hunnic king Rugila. The chronicle shows us Aetius immediately using his restored power to defend Gaul from both the barbarians and the Bacaudae. But there are significant omissions in the account of the later 430s. There is no reference to Aetius’s use of Hunnic auxiliaries, although this was a notorious fact.95 More importantly, even astonishingly, the Gothic war of 436439, one of Aetius’s chief concerns in this period, is completely ignored. It seems unlikely that there is material missing from our manuscripts of the Chronicle of 452; there is also little on the Gothic war in the Chronicle of 511, and that is drawn from Hydatius.96 Rather it appears that the Chronicler of 452 was unwilling, in the perspective of mid-century, to rank this war with the other victories ^ Chron. 452 67, 69, 71, 73, 78 treat these peregrinations of the Goths in Gaul. ,5 See above, chapter III, § 6. ,6 Chron. 511 594, derived from Hyd. 106.

THK CHRONICLER AND THE CRISIS OF EMPIRE

183

that he records in the 430s. Perhaps he did not consider the Gothic war to be one of Aetius’s more successful ventures; yet, as we shall see, other indications suggest that the chronicler chose to suppress the tilt of Roman policy towards the Huns and against the Goths, a strategy that seemed ill-advised to a man living during the war with Attila. The final section of the chronicle supports this interpretation, for while he was silent about the most recent instances of Gothic aggression, the chronicler strongly emphasized the growth of the Hunnic threat. He noted Attila’s murder of Bleda, recorded the flight of a Bacaudic leader to the Huns, and even adduced two Hunnic attacks on Thrace to heighten the air of menace.97 The latter of the eastern raids, in A.D. 447, provoked him directly to criticize his own government for inaction. These eastern wars were the prelude to the great invasions of the west which are the last events described by the chronicler. His discussion of Roman relations with the Huns and the Goths reveals important aspects of his view of the barbarians and their place in the world of 452. His attitude towards the intruders was less one of simple, fanatical hatred than it seems at first glance; it included a large dose of pragmatism as well. The peoples who were so dangerous left to their own devices or allied with usurpers could be — perhaps should be — valuable tools in the hands of capable and loyal Roman leaders, such as Dardanus in the 410s, or Stilicho when he fought Radagaisus. The realities of 452 are reflected throughout his account of the barbarian crises of the past. The large number of entries devoted to the Huns, the emphasis on the magnitude of the threat they posed to both empires, the assertion that the Huns had sheltered Bacaudic leaders, all sprang from a consciousness of Hunnic power. The chronicler’s fear of the Huns is evident in his surprisingly open criticism of the current western government for its failure to help the eastern empire fight the Huns. The same fear also explains the peculiarities of his portrayal of the Goths, the long-standing enemy of the Huns. It is particularly noteworthy that the chronicler presented Gothic transgressions against the Roman state, though serious, as long past. None is recorded more recently than 427. The peader of the chronicle sees that while the Huns have grown more dangerous with the passage of time, the Goths have become ,7 Chron.

452 130-133.

T H E G A L L I C C H R O N I C L E R O F 452

quiescent. Their latest recorded activity is as allies of “ the Romans” against Aetius and the Huns (c. 113; A.D. 433). The Chronicler of 452 did not praise the Goths, he did not even mention their role in the defeat of Attila, but the entire tendency of his account shows that he believed the Goths had been accommodated in a way that the Huns could not be. This conclusion, that the chronicler saw the Goths as the tolerable alternative in the current situation, does not depend entirely on the silences of his account. Such an attitude was fairly common in the 450s. We have seen something similar already in Prosper, whose final edition demonstrates a growing awareness that the Goths might be more useful than dangerous.98 In the very year that Prosper closed his account, the Gallic nobleman Avitus acted on that awareness, and claimed the imperial throne with Gothic help. In Sidonius Apollinaris’s panegyric on Avitus, delivered in 456, we possess a detailed justification of his policies, based on a very interesting version of the history of the previous twenty years, in which the past relations of the Romans with the Goths were made to foreshadow those obtaining in 456.99 Sidonius presented the new emperor to his audience as a perspi­ cacious man who, even during the 430s, had known how to deal appropriately with both Huns and Goths. Even then Avitus saw the Huns, whom Aetius and Litorius were using against the Goths, for what they were, false allies “betraying and making void the name of peace.” His view of the Goths was quite different; with them, peaceful relations were possible. A willingness to negotiate with the Goths, according to Sidonius, had made Avitus the true hero of the Gothic war of 436-439. When Litorius was dead and Aetius helpless, and their bellicose policy was discredited, Avitus stepped forward. He persuaded the Goths, who had been frightened and angered by the use of Hunnic auxiliaries against them, not to march on the Rhone, and even to return conquered territory to the empire. Later, it was Avitus who rallied the Goths to the Roman standard against Attila, and in the present crisis, that is, in 456, it was his unique rapport with this people that enabled him to enlist them as Rome’s soldiers. It is important to note that Sidonius did not praise the Goths. He showed them to be neither lovable nor completely trustworthy, and was quite content to demonstrate that they were ’* See above, chapter III, § 8. ^ Sidonius Apollinaris Carmina 7.241-315. Anderson 1: 138-144.

THK

c h r o n ic i . f r a n d t h e c r is is o f e m p ir e

185

both possible and necessary allies.100 Sidonius’s panegyric sheds some light on the rather ambiguous attitude of the Chronicler of 452 towards the Goths. Sidonius, writing only four years after his anonymous compatriot, saw the Gothic war of the 430s as an historic mistake. The active threat posed by Attila and Geiseric in the present day encouraged him (along with Prosper and many others) to regard the Gothic presence in Gaul as more of an asset than a danger. The chronicler seems to have been affected similarly by the events of the early 450s. His account of Roman relations with the Goths, like that of Sidoni us, was shaped by the current needs of the empire. Although he did not care to present the Goths as active friends of Rome, he was evidentfy unwilling to cast them in the role of present enemies. It is for this reason that some of their ancient faults — such as their reintroduction of Arianism into the West — were glossed over, and their hostility to the empire was relegated to the past. ★ The Chronicler of 452 did not try to explain the weakness of the empire in the face of its external enemies. He simply presented that weakness as an undoubted fact. It appears from his account, however, that one admirable quality found in past Roman leaders was absent from those of his own time: the quality of strenuitas, or energy. Three men are explicitly presented as possessing energy, or demonstrating it. One is Dardanus, whose diligence and energy detached the Goths from Jovinus and saved Gaul for legitimacy in the 410s.101 Another is Heraclian, whom the chronicler praised for energy even while depicting his ultimate treason (c. 75): H eraclian, C ount o f A frica, who had rendered vigorous service [strenuum ministerium] in the restoration of the Rom an w orld, was

killed while attem pting a usurpation. We are left uncertain what precise service Heraclian had performed, Ibid. 7.3)6-356, 397-575, esp. 489-518. Anderson 1: 144-148, 152-166. 101 Chron. 452 69. The chronicler’s praise for Dardanus and the dynastic legitimism expressed in c. 69 are very interesting, for D.’s contemporaries were shocked by his bloody suppression of Jovinus's adherents (Matthews, Western Aristocracies, pp. 315 n. 6, 321-322, and 322 n. 1). In the 460s, Sidonius recalled Dardanus as more viceridden than any of the usurpers of the 410s (Ep. 5.9.1, Anderson 2; 198-201). Praising Dardanus allowed the chronicler to ignore C'onstantius’s role in taming the Goths. See below at n. 107.

186

T H F G A L L I C C H R O N I C L E R O F 452

but he is known from other sources as one of the men who brought down Stilicho.'02 The third man praised for his energetic policy is Magnus Maximus, another usurper, whose very first act was “vigorously [strenue]” to overcome the Piets and Scots who were then invading Britain. It is obvious that, in the eyes o f the Gallic chronicler, energy displayed against Rome’s enemies or in the restoration of the Roman state was to be praised even in those otherwise worthy of condemnation. Despite his execration of Stilicho, he did not forget that general’s efforts against Gildo and Radagaisus, and characterized the defeat of the latter as a "dis­ tinguished victory” over a most dangerous opponent. One need not be a traitor to be vigorous, o f course. If Theodosius I was not explicitly credited with strenuitas, his energetic actions were recorded at length in the chronicle. He began his career by “restoring] the exhausted state” in the east and went on to defeat two usurpers. The open divine approval of his actions confirmed him as the sort of man who should have been the model of later rulers.'03 The Chronicler of 452 found none of this vitality in Theodosius’s descendants. He lacked enthusiasm for the later members of the great emperor’s dynasty, particularly its western representatives. This can be detected in several places, notably in his judgement of Honorius’s reign as one of almost unrelieved disaster. This is explicitly, if rather discreetly, expressed at the end of the reign (c. 91-93): 91 X X X II H onorius died in Ravenna. 92 Jo h n rose from the first desk o f the notaries to seize the realm , which was not his by any right. 93 H e left [ r e l iq u i t ] the em pire w ounded by m any disasters. At first glance it might appear that the chronicler meant that the wounds of the empire were the result of the usurpation, which on his own showing (as well as that of Prosper) was detrimental to the state. But his usage of the word relinquere elsewhere requires us to interpret chapter ninety-three as his summation of the dying emperor’s reign, and not as a characterization of John’s.104 Disaster, and no recognized heir, were Honorius’s legacies to Rome. The judgement parallels, but is harsher than, that of the Narratio de imperatoribus 11,2 Oost, “The Revolt of Heradian,” Classical Philology, 71 (1966): 236-242. 103 Chron. 452 5 (Th. in east), 18 (defeats Maximus), 30 (avenges Valentinian II, divine approval). See also above, § 6. 104 Cf. Chron. 452 53 (Arcadius leaves his young son as successor), 88 (Constantius leaves a young son).

THE CHRONIC LER AND THE CRISIS OF EMPIRE

187

domus Valentinianae et Theodosianae, the chronicler’s source: “In [Honorius’s] reign many heavy blows befell the state...Nevertheless, although this same emperor never obtained any success against external enemies, he was extremely successful in the destruction of tyrants.” 105 There is no counterpart to the last remark in the Chronicle of 452; the destruction of tyrants counted for less in a world where they were rare, but external threats were numerous. Indeed, one of the most surprising aspects of the chronicle is the way in which the role of Constantius, Honorius’s chief general, brother-in-law, and chosen colleague, was diminished. Prosper, Hydatius and Olympiodorus, all contemporaries of Constantius, judged him primarily responsible for the restoration of legitimate rule in the West during the 410s. Constantius himself claimed the title “reparator rei publicae.” 106 It was he who defeated the usurpers Constantine and Heraclian and the Goths as well, he who used the latter to establish order in Spain before he settled them in Aquitaine. His marriage to Placidia was a reward for his victories and an acknowledgement of his paramount position in the state.107 But the remarkable success of Constantius is nowhere acknowledged in the Chronicle of 452. Not one of his major accomplishments is credited to him. Dardanus, a Gallic official, is made the sole hero of the resistance to the tyrants of Gaul; Dardanus’s alliance with the Goths, rather than Constantius’s policies, is shown as the prelude to the Aquitanian settlement. Constantius’s operations in Gaul are, in this version, of secondary significance; they served only to prevent the Goths from resuming their wandering. The chronicler, so interested in the use of barbarian peoples to serve Roman ends, does not refer to the use of the Goths in Spain at all. Thus Constantius, whose military prowess would seem to make him a candidate for the highest praise from a man who valued vigor against Rome’s enemies, was reduced to a figure of primarily dynastic significance. Even here he was a failure, for he died too soon, leaving a minor heir who would grow up to be a non-entity. Constantius thus had no important role in the restoration of the empire; the chronicler had kinder words for his foe, Heraclian. Perhaps the fact that Constantius was a former supporter of Stilicho has something to do with the chronicler’s devaluation of the patrician.108 Yet one senses there was more to it than that, for as 105 106 107 I0*

CM, 1: 630. CIL 6: 1719 (ILS no. 801), cited by O’Flynn, p. 67. Prosp. 1243, 1256, 1259, 1271; Hyd. 60, 62, 63. 67-69, 72, 76. Oost, “ Revolt," p. 238.

THE GALLIC CHRONICLER OF 452

we have noted, Stilicho was not stinted of his due praise. According to the Chronicler of 452, the later Theodosians produced only one figure of determination and vigor. Galla Placidia, and he found it impossible to approve of her active participation in political affairs. He acknowledged her energy, but presented it as tainted with unseemly ambition. It is stated clearly in the chronicle that she was expelled from court because she “ was detected plotting against her brother (c. 90).” The chronicler emphasized her part in the suppression of the usurpation of John by saying “ Placidia sent troops to Theodosius who had requested them,” which phraseology shows her taking an independent and leading role, but he also stressed her selfish motivation by noting, after Valentinian Ill’s accession, that Placidia was “ finally promoted to the long wished-for royal power [Placidia tandem optato inlata regno]." This pungent phrase reminds one of Justina, the ambitious and heretical mother of Valentinian II, the only other woman mentioned by name in the chronicle. If Placidia was no heretic, her political role did her no credit. The point is made implicitly in the judgement recorded at her death in A.D. 450: “In this year Placidia ended a life that was blameless after her conversion...” 109 The chronicler’s distrust and disapproval of such active women as Justina and Placidia help explain, perhaps, why he referred in passing to the story of Honoria’s appeal to Attila, which in its full form is preserved only in eastern sources. According to Priscus, Honoria, the sister of Valentinian III, was caught in an affair with her steward; as a result, the steward was executed and Honoria married off, against her will, to an unambitious senator. In an effort to revenge herself on her family, she sent a message to Attila, pledging herself to marry him in exchange for his aid. Attila, accepting the offer, demanded from Valentinian both Honoria and her “ inheri­ tance” of half the Roman empire. Valentinian’s refusal gave Attila an excuse to wage war on the west.110 Whether the story is true is uncertain. The significant point is that the Chronicler of 452 had heard it, believed it, and dared to repeat it. The entry may be the result of strong feelings we can no longer fully recover: if the chronicler thought that Honoria was responsible, if only in part, for Attila’s invasion, his opinion of the later Theodosians may ha ve been 109 C.hrnn. 452 103, 136 (“Placidia quoque inreprehensibilem post conversionem vitam hoc anno explevit...”). "" John of Antioch, fr. 199, 2 (FHG 4:613-614); Priscus fr. 16 (FHG 4:98-99); see Blockley, FCH 2: 300-303.

THE CHRONICLER AND THE CRISIS OF EMPIRE

189

even lower than other entries suggest. The Gallic chronicler’s lack of enthusiasm for the house of Honorius seems to touch not only emperors and empresses, but Aetius as well. At no time does the chronicler pass an explicit judgement on him, his policies, or his personality; we could hardly expect too much candor in any case, since Aetius was in 452 still the most powerful man in the empire. Yet there is a contrast in the chronicle between Aetius’s early days as a tamer of barbarians and rebels and his career after 440. In that year, “Aetius returned to Italy after the tumults of the Gallic provinces had been subdued.” Thereafter, he did little but settle new barbarians in Gaul, something the chronicler regarded as destructive. The criticism of western inactivity during the Hunnic raids on the east must have been aimed at Aetius, the generalissimo and de facto ruler of the west. The last section of the chronicle also contains a telling silence. In the account of Attila’s “ unexpected defeat” in Gaul, Aetius’s name is not mentioned. Whatever renewed appreciation for his talents and energy may have been kindled by the victory of 451 had been dashed by the collapse of Italian resistance at Attila’s approach — a fiasco, one recalls, that Prosper blamed on the generalissimo."1 The way in which the Chronicler of 452 associated the turning point in Aetius’s career with his return to Italy brings us back to an observation we have made before; in discussing the leadership of the empire, as elsewhere, he spoke from a firmly Gallic point of view. He was well aware that since the time of Stilicho’s great treachery, the imperial government had more often than not proved inadequate to the needs of Gaul. Nor was he alone in this. Recent scholarship has reminded us that the resentment of imperial neglect was an important factor in fifth-century Gaul. Long before 452, it had led some Gallic nobles to adhere to Constantine and Jovinus; in the near future it would lead others to support Avitus, and eventually to collaborate with barbarian kings.1112 The Chronicler of 452, of 111 Chron. 452 123 (Aetius leaves Gaul), 124, 127, 128 (barbarian settlement in Gaul, note esp. c. 127), 132 (Westerners send no help against Huns), 139 (Attila’s defeat in Gaul), 141 (Attila invades Italy; cf. Prosp. 1367). 112 Matthews, Western Aristocracies is a masterly portrayal of the tensions between the Gallic nobility and the Italian based court to A.D. 425; see also Patrick Wormald, “The Decline of the Western Empire and the Survival of its Aristocracy,” review of Western Aristocracies by Matthews, Journal o f Roman Studies, 65 (1976), 221. Ralph W. Mathiscn (in “Resistance and Reconciliation: Majorian and the Gallic Aristocracy After the Fall of Avitus,” Francia, 7 (1979): 597-627) discusses the complex relationship between Gaul and the court in the late 450s. The resentment of an important segment of Gallic society was best voiced by Sidonius Apollinaris in Carmina 5.353-363. Anderson 1: 90-92.

T H E G A L L I C C H R O N I C L E R O F 452

course, was no rebel.113 For him Constantine and Jovinus were usurpers without redeeming features, and their supporters were simply disloyal. But even so determined a loyalist as he was capable of looking back farther, to the reign of Magnus Maximus, with a certain nostalgia. The Gallic chronicler’s treatment of Maximus is quite extensive: he is mentioned seven times in the 134 entries of the chronicle,114more often than any other figure save Theodosius I and Aetius. This may be in part a consequence of the availability of a source for Maximus — once again, Rufinus. Yet this factor can be exaggerated; only two of the seven notices can be traced back directly to Rufinus.115 The intriguing ambiguity in the presentation of Maximus is that of the chronicler himself. On the one hand he made it clear that Maximus was indeed a “tyrant,” a ruler whose power was flawed by its illegitimacy;116 on the other, the reader is shown a man who possessed those traits most desirable in a leader: energy in fighting barbarians (the Piets and Scots, c. 7) and great zeal for the destruction of heretics (the Manichaeans — actually Priscillian, c. 12) .

We can document that other Gauls, in an earlier generation, regretted that such a capable man should be a rebel.117 The Chronicler of 452 appears to have been the heir to that tradition. He had a most concrete appreciation of the usurper’s virtues, portraying him as an outlaw counterpart of the wholly praiseworthy Theodosius the Great, the only figure of authority who matched Maximus in both the religious and military spheres. This keen appreciation of Maximus’s worth can scarcely be unconnected with his status as the last strong emperor to be based in Gaul. Gaul had not seen his like since, and the chronicler knew it. The era of Theodosius and Maximus seems to have held the He was generally strong in his condemnation of usurpers and traitors. See for example Chron. 452, 34, 55, 69, 89, 92 and above, n. 101. 114 Seven of Mommsen’s 141 chapters are “ghosts" inserted as emendations; see above, § 3. 115 Maximus is discussed in Chron. 452 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18; only c. II and 16 detectably come from Rufinus. 116 Ibid. 6, 16. 111 Sulpicius Severus called Maximus “a man whose whole life would have been praiseworthy if he could have refused the crown illegally thrust upon him by a mutinous army and refrained from waging civil war.” (Dialogus II[Postumianus] 6.2 (CSEL 1; 187), as trans, by F.R. Hoare in Sulpicius Severus et ai..The Western Fathers (New York, 1954) p. 110). Cf. Dialogus III [Gallus] 11.2 (CSEL 1: 208), Orosius Hist. 7.34.9. (CSEL 5: 524), and the remarks of Matthews, “Macsen, Maximus, and Constantine,” Welsh Historical Review 11, (1983); 431.

prosper a n d t h e g a l l ic c h r o n ic l e r

191

interest of the Chronicler of 452 because it was the last period when such great warriors, such zealous champions of orthodoxy, ruled the empire. Between them they had held at bay the two threats that hung over the empire of 452. Each had won his wars against the empire’s enemies, each had fought heresy. Maximus had opposed Arianism, Theodosius had crushed it. Convinced that the empire since had too often been failed by its leadership, the Chronicler of 452 could look back at the troubled closing years of the fourth century and find much to approve in them.

8. Prosper and the Gallic Chronicler We noted in the previous chapter that Prosper was never very alarmed about the presence of barbarians in the empire. The great wars of the 450s had made him forcibly aware of the new importance to the Roman people and state of the gentes and their rulers. Yet his distinctive serenity remained unshaken. The Chronicler of 452 regarded the plight of the empire with anything but serenity. Writing at a grim juncture, he saw the alarming imperial defeats of recent years as the culmination of a long series of disasters that had been unfolding, with few interruptions, for the last half-century — a span of time that may have been longer than his own lifetime. His pessimism about the present and the future led him to paint the past in the blackest of colors, as the playing out in many instances of a single theme: the loss of Roman power in the face of “a multitude of enemies who were gaining strength” (c. 61). How can we account for the great difference in the attitudes of the two chroniclers? Two explanations suggest themselves. The Chro­ nicler of 452’s pessimism seems to stem in part from a feeling that the imperial government had for many years proved inadequate to look after the interests of Gaul. The actions of Avitus and his supporters in seizing the government after the failure of the Theodosian dynasty in 455 are a dramatic manifestation of Gallic discontent with the Italians. Nor was this a sudden, unprecedented flare-up; many of the men who followed Avitus to Rome were the sons and grandsons of those who had supported Jovinus in 411.118 Prosper, who left Gaul in the 430s and never returned, did not share that anxiety and dissatisfaction. It seems likely that in Rome he "* Sidonius was one of these; see Ep. 5.9.1. Anderson 2: 198-201, and above, nn. 101 , 112 .

ΤΗI; CÌALLIC CHRONICLER Of·' 452

was to some extent insulated from fears that afflicted his former fellow-countrymen. Yet Prosper’s greater distance from the bar­ barian menace is not enough to account for his differences from the Anonymous of 452. If Prosper was far from the Goths, the Alans and the Burgundians, he had in 455 seen the Vandals all too closely, and this experience had neither inspired him to denunciation of the barbarians in general nor caused him to lament the loss of imperial power in the style of the Gallic chronicler. Some other factor must be brought into the account. That factor would seem to be the differing ecclesiastical con­ ceptions held by the two writers. Prosper separated God’s people from the worldly, and he believed that the former continued to do God’s work despite everything. The worldly might be concerned with ordinary victories and defeats; those who looked for eternal riches need not. Prosper was not indifferent to the fate of the empire, but for him the progress made by spiritual men in doing God’s work outweighed all the setbacks in the secular sphere. In the more down-to-earth view of the Chronicler of 452, church and empire were inseparable. He was very much a partisan of the holy men of his time and country, and praised them highly; but he believed that the good of the church as a whole rested not only with clerical leaders, but also with zealous and orthodox emperors, who had the power and the will to repress heresy and unbelief. The fourthcentury battle against Arianism had been won only when a pious ruler, Theodosius the Great, gained control of the empire and chased the heretics beyond the bounds of the Roman world. Now, however, owing to the weakness of the emperors and their generals, the heretics were back, spreading their evil doctrine throughout the world and usurping once more the name of Catholic. When the two chroniclers already investigated present such different interpretations of the same events, curiosity as to the position of our third witness is a natural reaction. Hydatius of Lemica will not disappoint the reader. He wrote the most detailed chronicle of the century, and he too was a man of strong opinions and a definite historical vision.

y HYDATIUS

1. Introduction Ju st before 470 a Spanish bishop named Hydatius composed the last o f the fifth-century chronicles. At this time the imperial throne was visibly tottering in the west. There had been no recovery from the troubles that followed the murder of Valentinian III. This last of the Theodosians had been succeeded by a number of short-lived emperors. Each had died before he could restore even a semblance of stability. Hydatius’s chronicle is a grim account of the further disintegration of imperial power. The particular interest of his work lies in the way his own circumstances influenced his description of events. Hydatius wrote in tJallaecia,1the remote northwestern corner of the Iberian peninsula, a mountainous, isolated region that was proverbially the end of world for a culture based on the Mediterranean.2 Never more than superficially Romanized, it had been effectively lost to the empire since the invasion of Spain in 409; thereafter it had been occupied by 1 1 have chosen to refer to Hydatius's home province as Gallaecia, its fifth-century name, rather than as Galicia, the name of the smaller modern province in northwestern Spain. The ancient province covered a much wider area, and several important cities that Hydatius considered Gallaecian are not part of modern Galicia. On the boundaries of fifth-century Gallaecia, see Torres Rodriguez, “ Limites gcogräficos de Galicia en los siglos IV y V,” Cuadernos de esludios gailegos, 4(1949): 367-383, and “ La Galicia romana y la Galicia actual,” ibid., 8 (1953): 371-395; also Tranoy, 2: 130-131, where he voices some reservations about Torres Rodriguez’s reconstruction, and II, map 2. Mommsen, CM, 2: 3, 13 n. 12 suggested that the fifthcentury form of the name was “Callaecia.” 2 Hydatius himself speaks of the remoteness of Gallaecia and its position at the end of the world in praef. 1 and 7.193 193

194

HYDATIUS

the barbarian Sueves, and had suffered intermittently from their raids and from savage attacks by the Goths. Hydatius, who was a very old man when he wrote, could remember the days before the invasion, but had spent most of his life opposing barbarian disorder and the accompanying spread of heresy. Over the course of sixty years he had witnessed many tragedies, and as he set them down for posterity, there was little room left in his soul for anything but pessimism. Indeed, the troubles of his lifetime seemed so over­ whelming as to require an apocalyptic interpretation. Hydatius saw the chaos of his times as prefiguring or perhaps announcing the last days and the reign of Antichrist.3 The chronicle has several claims to the attention of the modern reader. On the simplest level, it is a most valuable source for a crucial but little known period. It is the best western historical account for the second half of the fifth century. Hydatius is also our chief witness for the end of Roman Spain: no other well-informed record of Spanish history survives for the entire period between Orosius (who ceased to write in 417) and John of Biclar, a chronicler of 590 who began his work with events of 565. Hydatius, although as committed to universal history as Jerome or his other continuators, was intensely concerned about Spanish affairs and particularly anxious to record the sufferings of his home province, Gallaecia. Indeed, he is one of the few fifth-century writers to show us the confrontation of Romans and barbarians in the context of a provincial society. Hydatius’s work also has the fascination of an unsolved puzzle. The chronicle is plagued with chronological ambiguities precisely in the period for which its testimony is most valuable, the years following 455. Recent attempts to solve the chronological difficulties have attracted attention to a work that, outside Spain, has been surprisingly neglected.4 The reinterpretation of the manuscript ' E.A. Thompson casts unnecessary doubt on the retrospective nature of the chronicle in Romans and Barbarians, pp. 140-141 and n. 10. The most natural interpretation of Hydatius’s prefatory remarks is that he wrote as an old man setting down the experience of his lifetime. This is confirmed by his difficulties with chronology, despite a conscientious effort to maintain accuracy (see below, appendix). 4 The most dedicated Spanish student has been Casimir Torres Rodriguez, whose articles in the Cuadernos de esiudios gallego? and elsewhere have to some degree been superseded by his recent book, E! Reino de /os Suevos (La Coruna, 1977). Outside Spain only a scattering of articles on selected aspects of Hydatius’s chronicle has appeared in the past forty years; these are best located in the bibliographies o f the recent editions (next note). There was almost nothing on Hydatius in English before the appearance of E.A. Thompson’s articles in Nottingham Medieval Studies v. 20-23 (1976-79), now collected in and cited from his Romans andBarbarians. An exception is J.N. Hillgarth, “Historiography in Visigothic Spain,” Settimane di Studio de! Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, 17, Pt. I (1970): 260-311. Very recently Richard W.

T u li A U T H O R 195

evidence offered by Christian Courtois in 1951 has inspired not one but two editions, complete with commentaries and facing trans­ lations.5 Neither, however, satisfactorily deals with Hydatius’s chronology. Hence the particular interest of the chronicle. It is a history produced in a period from which few others survive, an unusual account of the struggles o f a provincial society in the face of barbarian occupation, a text whose interpretation is in flux. Our emphasis in dealing with Hydatius’s chronicle, as before, will be to reveal, in so far as is possible, the unique perspective of the author on his own time.

2. The Author Outside his own writings, Hydatius is only briefly attested. Two letters preserved from the 440s refer to him. The first was written by Turribius, bishop of Astorga in Gallaecia, to Hydatius and an otherwise unknown bishop named Ceponius. Turribius was a zealous upholder of orthodoxy and wished to warn his colleagues about the spread of heresy and inspire them to take action against it. The letter addressed to Hydatius is a warning that secret heretics were infiltrating into the true church. This admonition got a positive response from Hydatius; when Turribius later wrote to Pope Leo the Great asking for support in his campaign against heresy, he evidently mentioned Hydatius as a collaborator in his work. Leo’s Letter 15, which is a reply to Turribius’s lost letter to Rome, names Hydatius as someone who could be relied upon in the struggle against Priscillianism.6 This exhausts the contemporary references to Hydatius. The chief later authority on Hydatius is a brief biography inserted by an unknown hand into some copies of Isidore of Seville’s De viris illustribus. It appears, however, that the pseudo-Isidore knew no Burgess has contributed two articles, “The Third Regnal Year o f Eparchius Avitus: A Reply," Classical Philology, 82 (1987): 335-345, and “A New Reading for Hydatius Chronicle 177 and the Defeat of the Huns in Italy” (forthcoming). ' Christian Courtois, “Auteurs et Scribes: Remarques sur la Chroniqued’Hydace,” Byzantion, 21 ( 1951): 23-54; Hydace, Chronique , ed. and trans. Alain Tranoy, Sources Chrétiennes v. 218-219 (Paris, 1974), hereafter cited as “Tranoy;" H ydatiu s, lciacio, Ohispo de Chaves. Su Cronìcón, ed. and trans. Julio C am pos (Salamanca, 1984), hereafter cited as “C am pos." A third edition, which rightly rejects Courtois’s analysis, is forthcoming from Richard W. Burgess. Citations to Hydatius are from Mommsen’s edition, which is the best currently available. 6 Turribius, Epistula a d H ydatium et Ceponium (PL 54:693-695); Leo, lip. 15.17 (PL 54: 677-692). For more on the relationship between Turribius and Hydatius, see below, § 9.

1%

HYDATIUS

more than he could gather from his own reading of the chronicle: h e tells us only that Hydatius was a bishop of Gallaecia, who wrote a chronicle of a certain description, and died under the Emperor L e o , “already in nearly extreme old age, as the indication of his o w n preface shows.”7 Fortunately for our appreciation of both the man and his work, Hydatius included some personal information in the preface to his chronicle and the body of the work. He has given us only a few isolated glimpses of his life, but these are both valuable and suggestive. In the preface to the chronicle, Hydatius said that he was born in Lemica (perhaps the present Ginzo de Lima)8 in the province o f Gallaecia, and that he was a bishop (though “more by reason o f divine favor than by personal merit”). He did not name his see. He described himself as scarcely educated in secular studies and even less learned in religion, a conventional sentiment belied by the quality of his work. He stated that his history is based on his personal knowledge from the time he became bishop, in the third year of Valentinian III, i.e. 427. There is also a final, intriguing detail about his early life: as a young boy (in fa n tu lu s ) he sa w, in the course of a trip to the Holy Land, Jerome, one of his ecclesiastical heroes and his model as an historian. He repeated this claim later in the chronicle. After entering John in his list of bishops of Jerusalem, and mentioning that he does not know who his immediate predecessors were, he added: “I, however, as a little child and a ward in the care of a tutor, saw this holy man, John, as well as the blessed Eulogius [of Caesarea], Theofilus [of Alexandria] and Jerome.” (c. 40).9 This story gives us clues to both the chronicler’s age and his social standing. His voyage to the east most likely took place at about the date under which he records it, that is, in 407. If the trip had occurred later, in 409 or after, Hydatius’s party would have found it difficult to return to Gallaecia because of the chaos of the barbarian invasions. Other Spaniards in a similar situation did not even attempt the journey.10If indeed the child Hydatius visited the east in 407, he was 7 See Mommsen in CM, 2: 4. 8 CM, 2: 3. * All citations to Hydatius refer to Mommsen’s edition, CM, 2: 1-36. 10 Torres Rodriguez, “Peregrinaciones de Galicia a Tierra Santa en el siglo V," Cuadernos de estudios gallego.r, 10 (1955): 328-329. Tranoy, I: 12, states that Epiphanius of Cyprus’s death in 403 establishes a te r m in u s a d quern for the trip, assuming that Hydatius would have visited Epiphanius if he were still alive. Epiphanius is mentioned by Hydatius in connection with the clerics that the chronicler

THE AU THOR

197

probably born in or before A.D. 400, most likely in the mid 390s. Thus Hydatius was an exact contemporary of Prosper." The single reminiscence about his youth allows us to state that Hydatius came from a wealthy Christian family that was probably socially prominent in its home province. It is unlikely that someone without resources or connections would have been in a position to make such a long voyage. The trip, with its visits to the prominent churchmen of Egypt and Palestine, may have been a pilgrimage — certainly some member of the party was aware of its religious possibilities and pointed out the clergymen named by Hydatius as worthy of remembrance. It may be that Hydatius’s family were among the zealous Spanish Christians who were prominent in Theodosius I’s administration. Theodosius, a Gallaecian himself (as Hydatius tells us)12surrounded himself with Westerners, and his courtiers helped set the tone of his reign. As pious individuals, patrons of monasticism and agents of Theodosius’s religious policies, officials of Western origin contri­ buted to the establishment of a special relationship between the court and the Catholic hierarchy.13 One of the most notable Spanish members of this group, Maternus Cynegius, can be indirectly connected with Hydatius. Cynegius, a praetorian prefect, used his power to destroy pagan temples in Egypt and Mesopotamia.14 Hydatius knew of him, and included a brief, approving notice in his chronicle (c. 18). The link between the two men is the consular annals used and continued by Hydatius. These annals, a valuable exemplar of the annals o f Constantinople discussed at length in chapter two, came to our chronicler in a copy associated with Cynegius and his widow Acanthia.13 If a connection between Hydatius and the civil aristocracy of Theodosian times is possible rather than proven, his very name suggests that he was descended from a prominent ecclesiastical family. The two most famous opponents of Priscillian were Bishop specified he· saw (c. 38). But Hydatius may have known of Epiphanius through his reading. Epiphanius is listed in Jerome’s De viris iniusirìbus 114. ed. E. C. Richardson (Leipzig, 1896), p. 51 as an opponent o f heresy. “ See Tranoy, 1; 12-13. u Hyd. 2; confirmed by Zosimus /Ustorianova 4.24.4, ed. F. Paschoud (Paris, 197179), 2, Pt. 2: 286-287. " Matthews, Western Aristocracies, pp. 107-145. 14 Matthews, Western Aristocracies, pp. 140-143. iT°r ‘h e an.niil),oi' C'ons,an" n' ,Plc and the link between Cynegius and Hydatius. ppC 608-619 t r * ^ ^ and •