The Fragmentary Latin Histories of Late Antiquity (Ad 300-620): Edition, Translation and Commentary 1108420273, 9781108420273

Citation preview

T H E F R A G M E N TA RY L AT I N H I S T O R I E S O F L AT E A N T I Q U I T Y ( A D 3 0 0 – 6 2 0 )

The first systematic collection of fragmentary Latin historians from the period AD 300–620, this volume provides an edition and translation of, and commentary on, the fragments. It proposes new interpretations of the fragments and of the works from which they derive, whilst also spelling out what the fragments add to our knowledge of Late Antiquity. Integrating the fragmentary material with the texts preserved in full, the volume suggests new ways to understand the development of historiography in the transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. lieve van hoof  is Professor of Ancient History at Ghent University. Trained as a classicist, historian and political scientist, she studies the socio-political role of literature under the Roman Empire. Her publications include Plutarch’s Practical Ethics: The Social Dynamics of Philosophy (2010) and Libanius: A Critical Introduction (2014). Together with Peter Van Nuffelen, she has published the Clavis Historicorum Antiquitatis Posterioris (2020), a full inventory of late antique historiography, and a translation of Jordanes’ Romana and Getica (2020). peter van nuffelen is Professor of Ancient History at Ghent University, where he has led an ERC-funded team on late ancient historiography. He has published widely on Late Antiquity, early Christianity, and ancient religion and philosophy. Recent books are Orosius and the Rhetoric of History (2012) and Penser la tolérance dans l’Antiquité tardive (2018).

T H E F R AG M E N TA RY L AT I N H I S TO R I E S O F L AT E A N T I QU I T Y ( A D 3 0 0 – 6 2 0 ) Edition, Translation and Commentary L I E V E VA N HOOF Universiteit Gent, Belgium

PETER VAN NUFFELEN Universiteit Gent, Belgium

University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, ny 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 79 Anson Road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108420273 doi: 10.1017/9781108333047 © Lieve Van Hoof and Peter Van Nuffelen 2020 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2020 Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd, Padstow Cornwall A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. isbn 978-1-108-42027-3 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Contents

Acknowledgementspage vii List of Abbreviations ix Introduction 1 Scope 2 Methodology 3 Genre 4 Circulation 5  Social and Political Context 6  Conclusion: The ‘End’ of Latin Historiography?

1 1 4 7 13 18 24

1 Carminius

28

2 Anonymous, On the origins of Padua

32

3

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

36

4

Nummius Aemilianus Dexter

59

5 Protadius

64

6 Naucellius

68

7 Anonymous, History of Rome

73

8 Pseudo-Hegesippus

77

9

81

Sulpicius Alexander

v

vi

Contents

10 Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

99

11 Favius

131

12 Consentius

134

13 Ablabius

137

14 Symmachus the Younger

146

15 Maximian of Ravenna

166

16 Marcellinus Comes

182

17 Cassiodorus

194

18 Roterius

226

19 Secundus of Trent

232

20 Maximus of Zaragoza

246

Spuria et Dubia

249

21 Bruttius

250

22 Latinus Alcimus Alethius Rhetor

262

23 Tyconius

264

Bibliography Indexes   Index locorum   Index nominum et rerum

268 314 314 325

Acknowledgements

The entries on Nummius Aemilianus Dexter and Maximian of Ravenna substantially reprint L. Van Hoof, ‘The Omnimoda Historia of Nummius Aemilianus Dexter: A Latin Translation of Eusebius’ Chronography?’, Vigiliae Christianae 71 (2017): 199–204 and L. Van Hoof, ‘Maximian of Ravenna: Chronica’, Sacris Erudiri 55 (2016): 259–76. They are republished here with the kind authorization of (respectively) Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands, and Brepols Publishers, Turnhout, Belgium. The editions of Favius, Ablabius, and Cassiodorus use material from P. Van Nuffelen and L. Van Hoof, Jordanes: Romana and Getica (Translated Texts for Historians), Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2020. Except for Dexter and Maximian, all entries are fully co-authored, with Lieve Van Hoof focusing on the editions and translations of the texts, and Peter Van Nuffelen on the introductions and commentaries; he is also responsible for the general introduction to the volume. Since, however, we have read, commented upon, and contributed to each other’s work, we both assume full responsibility for the whole volume. We thank Sara De Decker for help with the editions and translations and Dr Tine Scheijnen for checking them. Thanks also to Dr Lorenzo Focanti, Dr Andy Hilkens, and Dr Marianna Mazzola for help with the entry on Bruttius, and to Dr M. O’Farrell for improving our English. The bibliography and notes were formatted by Lotte Van Olmen. We owe thanks to P. Blaudeau, R. Collins, G. Galdi, H. Reimitz, J. Wijnendaele, and J. Wood, as well as to the ­reviewders for Cambridge University Press for their feedback and suggestions. We owe a great debt to our copy-editor John Jacobs for his thoroughness and expertise, which have been of great benefit to this volume. Obviously, we assume responsibility for all remaining errors and opinions expressed in this book. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007–2013) / ERC Grant Agreement vii

viii

Acknowledgements

n. 313153. This book was finalised when both authors were research f­ ellows at the Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg in 2019–2020, funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung and the Research Foundation – Flanders (Lieve Van Hoof ), and the ERC Starting Grant ACO, directed by P. Riedlberger (Peter Van Nuffelen).

Abbreviations

BHL Blaise BNJ CCSL CHAP CIL CPG DMLBS DNP FGrHist FHistLA FRHist HRR

Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina, 2 vols. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1898–1901, with a supplement by H. Fros, 1986. A. Blaise, Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens, 2nd ed., rev. and augm. Turnhout: Brepols, 1962. I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Leiden: Brill, 2005–. https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/ brill-s-new-jacoby. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina P. Van Nuffelen and L. Van Hoof, eds., Clavis Historicorum Antiquitatis Posterioris. Turnhout: Brepols, 2020. www.late-antique-historiography.ugent.be/database/. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum M. Geerard et al., eds. Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 6 vols., Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca. Turnhout: Brepols, 1974–98. K. Ashdowne, R. R. Howlett, and R. E. Latham, eds., Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources. British Academy: Oxford, 2018. H. Cancik, H. Schneider, and M. Landfester, eds., Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, 18 vols. Stuttgart: ­Metzler, 1996–2003. F. Jacoby, ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin: Weidemann and Leiden: Brill, 1923–, continued by G. Schepens, S. Schorn, and H. Gehrke. Fragmentary Histories of Late Antiquity, referring to this ­volume. A second volume with fragmentary Greek ­chronicles is in preparation. T. J. Cornell, ed., The Fragments of the Roman Historians, 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. H. Peter, ed., Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1906 (vol. II) and 19142 (vol. I). ix

x ILS L&S LSA PCBE 1 PCBE 2 PCBE 3 PG PL PLRE RE TLL

List of Abbreviations H. Dessau, ed., Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 5 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1892–1916. C. Lewis, C. Short, E. A. Andrews, et al., A Latin ­Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Last Statues of Antiquity Database. http:// laststatues.classics.ox.ac.uk/. A. Mandouze et al., Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne (303–533) (Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 1). Paris: École française de Rome, 1982. J. Desmulliez et al., Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne (313–604) (Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 2). Paris: École française de Rome, 1999. S. Destephen, Prosopographie du Diocèse d’Asie (325–641) (Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 3). Paris: École française de Rome, 2008. Migne, J.-P. et al., eds., Patrologiae Cursus Completus: ­Patrologia Graeca. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844–55. Migne, J.-P. et al., eds., Patrologiae Cursus Completus: ­Patrologia Latina. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857–68. A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, and J. Morris, eds., The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, 3 vols. ­Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971–92. A. F. Pauly, G. Wissowa, et al., eds., Paulys Real-­ Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 81 vols. ­Stuttgart: Druckenmüller, 1893–1978. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Stuttgart, Leipzig, and Munich: Teubner, 1900–.

Abbreviations of epigraphical works follow F. Bérard, D. Feissel, P. Petitmengin, and M. Sève, Guide de l’épigraphiste: Bibliographie choisie des épigraphies antiques et médiévales (Paris: Editions rue d’Ulm, 2010).

Introduction

This introduction falls into two parts. First, we discuss the scope of this volume of Latin fragmentary historians and the methodology used to edit them. In the second and longer part of this introduction, we situate the works edited here in the context of later Latin historiography, with a particular interest in the genre and circulation of the texts, as well as their social and geographical context.

1 Scope This edition presents, in roughly chronological order, the fragments of Latin histories from the period AD 300–620, that is, works that are not preserved in the direct tradition but are cited by later authors. This material has never been edited before. The classic collection of Latin fragmentary historians by H. Peter sought to be comprehensive up to the reign of Constantine and included only three later authors.1 The new standard collection of Roman historians by T. Cornell and his collaborators ends in the first half of the third century, and claims that with the fourth century a new chapter in the history of Latin historiography begins.2 Albeit traditional,3 this claim does not survive close scrutiny and this collection makes available material that will give us a more nuanced view of Latin historiography in Late Antiquity.4 Any collection of this kind needs to make choices regarding selection. The selection in this collection has been guided by four principles. 1

HRR. He includes Nicomachus Flavianus (FHistLA 3), Naucellius (FHistLA 6), and Symmachus the Younger (FHistLA 14). 2 Cornell 2013, I, 10: ‘The historiography that resumed in the fourth century represents the start of a new era, differing radically from what preceded, above all the rise of Christian historical writing.’ 3 Cf. Marincola 2007. 4 See the conclusion to this introduction.

1

2 Introduction First, we collect fragmentary works in the sense defined above, which is indebted to the seminal work of F. Jacoby on Greek fragmentary historians (FGrHist): we gather works that are explicitly attested in later authors as having been written, but that are not preserved in the manu­ script tradition. This excludes three types of works that are sometimes also called fragmentary in a less technical sense of the word: hypothetical works, partial works, and projected works. Hypothetical works, such as the Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte, are those that have been reconstructed by modern scholars without ever having been identified as a distinct work in the ancient tradition.5 Even if scholarship in this case largely agrees on its existence, such Quellenforschung must always remain hypothetical, and cannot be treated in the same way as fragmentary works, which have a stronger claim to existence. Partial works are, as the name implies, partially preserved in the manuscript tradition. Ammianus Marcellinus would be a case in point, but chronicles are also regularly preserved in this way.6 Such works have usually received editions and discussion. Finally, projected works are works that an author intended to write or was asked to write without there being any indication whether the design was ever actually executed.7 Second, we seek to avoid any overlap with other major collections available. We do not include authors who might date to after 300 but have already been discussed in FRHist.8 The pseudonymous authors of the ­biographies of the Historia Augusta, for example, have been discussed there, and we shall not repeat those conversations here. As R. Burgess and M. Kulikowski are currently preparing an edition of all Latin chronicles from Late Antiquity,9 we have also excluded chronicles.10

 5

Enmann 1884; CHAP s.v. Two examples are the Continuation of Marcellinus Comes (CHAP s.v.) and the Chronicle of 565 (Dumville 1973; CHAP s.v.).  7 E.g. the ecclesiastical history of Jerome (Jerome, Life of Malchus 1; CHAP s.v.); the history of Ausonius (Discourse of thanksgiving 2; CHAP s.v.); the history of Sidonius Apollinaris (Letter 4.22; CHAP s.v.). It is uncertain whether or not Protadius (FHistLA 5) and the anonymous historian of Rome (FHistLA 7) actually finished their works as the fragments only attest that they were busy writing. But at least they had moved beyond mere intention.  8 Only two authors would qualify: Rubellius Blandus (FRHist 108) and Bruttius (FRHist 98), who could date to the early fourth century. We make one exception for Bruttius (FHistLA 21), where we offer a more complete edition of the fragments than Cornell and a different interpretation.  9 Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a is the introductory volume. Note that the team of Bruno Bleckmann and Markus Stein plans an edition and German translation of some of the works edited here: http:// www.geschichte.hhu.de/lehrstuehle/alte-geschichte/unsere-forschung/kleine-und-fragmentarischehistoriker-der-spaetantike-kfhist.html. 10 See further below pp. 11–13.  6



  Scope

3

Third, we exclude texts that belong to other genres.11 This is particularly relevant in two instances. In line with our predecessors we have excluded poetical works that dealt with historical subjects. Poetry and prose histories followed different generic conventions, even if it could be said that Lucan was more an historian than a poet.12 Contrary to our predecessors we also exclude biography. This is a genre that in Antiquity could be situated within or outside of historiography and one that, in the guise of Christian hagiography, flourished in Late Antiquity. As research tools for and extensive scholarship on Latin hagiography already exist, we have ­decided to leave biography out.13 Finally, we have excluded the putative sources used by Nennius, History of the Britons – a work dated to the ninth to eleventh century.14 It contains references to the Books of the elders,15 the Annals of the Romans,16 the Annals of the Scots,17 and the Annals of the Saxons.18 Much is uncertain about Nennius, and hence also about the sources he claims to have used. If the references are to real texts, there is a theoretical possibility that some might fall within the temporal limits of this volume, even if a date before 620 would be remarkably early.19 Given these uncertainties, we have opted not to include these works. The material we have excluded obviously needs to be taken into account when writing the history of later Latin historiography, and, in fact, it can be easily accessed in the Clavis Historicorum Antiquitatis Posterioris (CHAP). We shall refer to works left aside in this edition later 11

On genre, see below p. 7–13 and, more extensively, the introduction to Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a. 12 Jordanes, Getica 43 with Kimmerle 2013. This means that we exclude the following works: the epic on Magnentius attributed to Proba (CHAP s.v.), which is, in fact, most likely spurious (Schottenius Cullhed 2015, 114–17); Ausonius, On usurpers and On pre-Roman kings (Green 1991, 720; CHAP s.v.); the portraits of contemporaries by Avianius Symmachus (Symmachus, Letter 1.2-4; CHAP s.v.); the paraphrase of Livy attributed to Avienus, which is, in any case, spurious (Servius, On Aeneid 10.388; Murgia 1970; CHAP s.v.); and the paraphrase of Suetonius by Paulinus of Nola (Ausonius, Letter 23; CHAP s.v.). 13 See esp. BHL. Some examples of fragmentary Latin biography include: Severus Acilius, presumably an autobiography from a Christian perspective (Jerome, On illustrious men 111; Schmidt, in Herzog 1989, 211; CHAP s.v.); Petronius, Historia monachorum (Gennadius, On illustrious men 42; CHAP s.v.); Jordanes, Life of Boethius (possibly spurious; CHAP s.v.). See also the works of Avianius Symmachus and Paulinus of Nola in the previous n. 14 Dumville 1975–6; Morris 1978; CHAP s.v. 15 Nennius, Historia Brittonum pr., 17–18, 27; CHAP s.v. 16 Nennius, Historia Brittonum pr., 10; CHAP s.v. 17 Nennius, Historia Brittonum pr., 12–15; CHAP s.v. 18 Nennius, Historia Brittonum pr., 57–61; CHAP s.v. 19 Note also that here we might be dealing with chronicles. Mommsen 1898, 143 suggests that the Annals of the Romans is in fact the chronicle of Jerome.

4 Introduction in this introduction, when we situate the fragmentary texts in the wider context of late ancient historiography.

2 Methodology For the edition of the fragments, we rely on the best available edition of the citing authorities, signalling relevant variant readings. Delimitation of fragments is difficult at the best of times, and we try to give sufficient content to allow the reader to understand the context in which the fragment appears. In contrast to other collections of this type, such as FGrHist and FRHist, we have not tried to indicate what part of the fragment may reflect what the lost historian actually said and what part derives from the citing authority. Even if in some cases this may be clear from the text itself, it is a well-known fact that even seemingly literal quotations may have been altered by the citing authority. At any rate, we discuss the delimitation of the fragment in the commentary. Regarding the selection of fragments, we follow the habitual rules as used in the study of classical fragmentary historians and most rigorously set out by F. Jacoby for his collection of Greek fragmentary historians. In his view, a collection of fragments should display what the ancient and medieval tradition reports. As a consequence, it only includes fragments that are explicitly attributed to a particular author or work. In other words, we do not include fragments that have been attributed to particular works on the basis of modern Quellenforschung, that is, modern hypothetical reconstructions of the relationship between various texts. Indeed, Jacoby was adamant that one should clearly distinguish collecting fragments from reconstructing a lost work.20 The former task allows us to see precisely what tradition attributed to the lost text and thus provides a relatively certain basis for understanding the work. It shows, as Jacoby said, what we can know and what we cannot know. Reconstructions of lost works, on the other hand, are necessarily hypothetical, as they fill in the blanks that fragments leave, a fact that the user of a collection of fragmentary authors should be able to see clearly in order to form his or her own judgement. Indeed, Jacoby established his rules to protect scholars from themselves: the certainty of results reached through Quellenforschung ‘is usually

20

Jacoby 1923, vi. Note also the warning of Barnes 1970, 268 against attaching names to anonymous sources reconstructed by Quellenforschung.



  Methodology

5

overestimated’.21 The principles just formulated are self-evident in classical scholarship,22 but, as if Late Antiquity really were a different field, they are rarely adopted in studies of fragmentary historians from this period. Indeed, some late antique scholarship still conflates collecting fragments, Quellenforschung, and reconstruction of the work.23 We hope this volume will demonstrate the profit to be gained from adopting Jacoby’s principles. This does not mean that Quellenforschung cannot be a worthwhile pursuit, but one should be aware of the limits of what it can show. In one minor aspect we deviate from Jacoby’s counsel. He separates fragments attributed to specific books of a lost history from those only attributed to the work in general. In this volume, this rule would only apply to Sulpicius Alexander (FHistLA 9) and Frigeridus (FHistLA 10), the only cases for which we have fragments that have book numbers as well as fragments that do not, 21

Jacoby 1926, vi–vii: ‘es ist doch eine banale wahrheit, daß in der mehrzahl der fälle die tradition, wie sie von den primären autoren geformt ist, bis sie zu den uns erhaltenen kompilationen gelangt, durch eine reihe von händen gegangen ist und zahlreiche, kleine oder große, tiefgehende oder oberflächliche veränderungen erfahren hat. die aufnahme unter bestimmtem namen ist nicht möglich, und noch weniger kurze hinweise im anhang oder in einem besonderen apparat zu den einzelnen büchern und fragmenten, ohne daß sicheres mit allen graden von unsicherem gemischt und der benutzer, der schon im allgemeinen nur zu geneigt ist, solche sammlungen als autoritativ anzusehen, getäuscht wird über das maß dessen, was wir wissen und wissen können. ich kann hier nicht auf die methodischen fragen nach art und berechtigung unserer üblichen quellenkritik und dem nach der lage der sache jeweilig erreichbaren grad von sicherheit ihrer resultate eingehen. aber das glaube ich behaupten zu dürfen: diese sicherheit wird meist überschätzt.’ 22 Cornell 2013, I, 15–16 does not even feel the need to articulate them. 23 Roberto 2005 and Mariev 2008 offer two fundamentally different editions of the fragments of John of Antioch, each reproducing one side of the nineteenth-century debate: see Van Nuffelen 2012b. The response made in Mariev 2016 is inadequate, arguing that Jacoby’s principles cannot be applied to Byzantine texts, apparently ignoring the fact that many of the lost classical Greek historians are known from Byzantine sources. Moreover, contrary to what Mariev claims, the Excerpta Constantiniana, our main source for John of Antioch, do distinguish between John Malalas and John of Antioch, thus allowing the listing of nominally ascribed fragments. Equally problematic are Hoyland’s edition of Theophilus of Edessa (Hoyland 2011, with the criticism in Conterno 2014 and in the chapters by Conterno and Debié in Jankowiak and Montinaro 2015; in the same volume, Hoyland offers somewhat of a retracatio) and that of the church historian Gelasius of Caesarea (Wallraff et al. 2018, on which see Van Nuffelen 2019). Treadgold 2007 passim freely identifies ‘fragments’ of lost authors like Candidus on the basis of tendencies in later sources that seem to fit the tendency of the lost author. The series Kleine und fragmentarische Historiker der Spätantike directed by B. Bleckmann and M. Stein (Düsseldorf ) also edits hypothetical works, such as the so-called Fastenquelle of Socrates (Becker et al. 2016) and the Ennmannsche Kaisergeschichte. The Kaisergeschichte is one of the few hypothetical sources whose existence scholars generally accept, but there is a significant variety in the reconstructions (CHAP s.v.) There is, we would argue, a need for a methodological consensus when dealing with late antique fragmentary historians. Since there is no meaningful difference in transmission between classical and late antique historians, it is hard to see why late antique scholars should not adopt the consensus of classical scholars, which has led to proven results.

6 Introduction and in those cases a strong case can be made that Gregory of Tours transmits the fragments in the order they appeared in the lost works. In line with Jacoby’s guidance, the aim of this collection is to give the reader a clear sense of what we know and what we do not know. Our starting point is to understand the fragments correctly: as the reader will notice, we argue that many reconstructions of the works in this collection are based on mistaken or questionable interpretations of the Latin. No amount of circumstantial evidence can force the meaning of a text. If there is a logical, coherent, and grammatically correct interpretation of the text, it must take priority over circumstantial arguments. We then bring together the information the fragments provide in order to make clear to the reader the parameters within which a possible reconstruction of the work has to situate itself. Only then will we offer a reconstruction that we think most likely. Scholars have claimed a great afterlife for some of the authors edited in this collection, detecting their influence in a vast array of texts through Quellenforschung. This is especially the case for Nicomachus Flavianus (FHistLA 3) and Symmachus the Younger (FHistLA 14). We do not follow these hypotheses in our reconstruction, but discuss them in a separate section. In each case, it becomes clear that Jacoby’s prudence is warranted. The case of Cassiodorus (FHistLA 17) may help us to see why. We have the full text of the Getica of Jordanes, which explicitly claims to have summarized the History of the Goths of Cassiodorus. Yet it is extremely difficult to identify unquestionably Cassiodorean material in the Getica. A fortiori, in cases where there is a whole set of intermediaries, this becomes even more difficult.24 In sum, this volume distinguishes the certain and the possible from the hypothetical. This is the precondition for making progress with this material, and we hope that this collection will spur wider interest in later Latin historiography. The entries are headed by the name of the author and the English title of the work: e.g. Carminius, On Italy. After a discussion of the person and general features of the work, fragments are presented, preceded by a Latin title. We can rarely be certain that the fragments and testimonia give us the original title: in doubtful cases we add a question mark. The commentary on the fragments is mainly focused on historiographical issues and less on historical ones. We offer elucidations regarding realia mentioned in the fragments mainly through notes to the translation, whilst the commentary on each fragment seeks to spell out how it informs us about the lost work.

24

See, again, the quotation from Jacoby in n. 21.



  Genre

7

When both interact (as in Frigeridus FHistLA 10 F1, where the dating of events impacts on our understanding of his position in the historiographical tradition), the issue is discussed in the commentary.

3 Genre Relying on explicit statements by late antique writers25 and on recurring formal features of the works themselves, late ancient historiography can be divided into four main genres: secular history, ecclesiastical history, sacred history, and chronicles.26 As for biography, ancient authors rank it with historiography, but also differentiate both types of text.27 Here we do not consider biography further as it does not fall within the scope of this collection. The aim of this section is to examine how the fragmentary works in this collection relate to these genres and their development. Secular history comprises all works that stand in continuity with narrative Latin historiography of the Empire.28 Whilst grand-scale histories of contemporary events, like those of Tacitus and Ammianus Marcellinus, are the paradigmatic form to ancient and modern minds,29 the genre was much more varied. In the material edited for this collection, we observe several clusters of material. The first cluster consists of histories with a geographically limited focus. Two of these have an explicit interest in the distant past and have therefore been called ‘antiquarian history’. The anonymous On the origins of Padua (FHistLA 2) explains a passage from Vergil and is also cited to that effect. Carminius was a grammarian and gathered religious traditions from Italy (FHistLA 1). If both are late antique, they would date to the first half or middle of the fourth century. Whilst they are obviously related to Rome, they do not focus explicitly on Rome itself: the anonymous author wrote about Padua and Carminius about Italy with, so it seems, a particular interest in nations other than the Romans. This finds an interesting parallel in the work Protadius planned to write about Gaul (FHistLA 5): relying on Roman sources like Caesar, it was bound to be a Roman history, but 25

Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle pr.1–4; Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.17; Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical history 5.24. See also Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 4.22. 26 For a full justification of this division and reflections on a flexible use of the concept of genre, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof, Introduction, in Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a. 27 See Stadter 2007 for an overview and Van Nuffelen 2017 on the relation between both in the Historia Augusta. 28 For a justification of the term ‘secular’, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a, XXV–XXVI. 29 An eloquent statement of this fact can be seen in Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 4.22. See below p. 25 on Ammianus Marcellinus as the ‘last’ Latin historian.

8 Introduction of a particular region. Such a local focus is not attested in preserved works and only seems to recur at the end of the period with works written from the perspective of particular kingdoms.30 A second cluster consists of histories of Rome that cover a wide time span. The breviarium has often been claimed to be the paradigmatic type of Latin historiography in the fourth century,31 an impression generated by the preservation of Eutropius, Festus, Aurelius Victor, and the anony­ mous Epitome de Caesaribus.32 In this collection, we encounter a number of works that display similarities with these histories. The anonymous historian of Rome (FHistLA 7) composed a history of Rome; Naucellius (FHistLA 6) translated a Greek book on the early history of Rome; and the work of Nicomachus Flavianus (FHistLA 3) is considered to be a history of Republican and/or Imperial Rome. If these date to the fourth century, the history of Symmachus the Younger (FHistLA 14) from the end of the fifth or early sixth century fits the pattern, as well, as does the sixth-­ century history of Marcellinus Comes (FHistLA 16). That of Maximian of Ravenna (FHistLA 15) certainly ran up to his own day, but its starting point is unclear. It is also possible that the history of Frigeridus (FHistLA 10) more closely resembled the Epitome de Caesaribus than the Res gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus. If the term breviarium still suggests a fundamentally derivative nature, it must be underscored that all four extant works covered contemporary history, as well, as Frigeridus certainly did. At any rate, this overview suggests that the dominant model of later Latin ­historiography was a work that covered a long time span of Roman ­history: even Ammianus, who started where Tacitus had left off, conforms in some way to that model. Works that focused only on contemporary events are rare. One exception may be Sulpicius Alexander (FHistLA 9), who is usually taken to be a successor of Ammianus and said to cover events from 378 until 395. But his extant fragments cover only events from 388 until 393, with the first fragment derived from book 3: we could also imagine a work on the lines of that of the Greek historian Zosimus (c. 500), whose first books quickly cover the rise of Rome and the history of the Empire

30

See below pp. 9–10. For later Latin historiography, Marincola 2007 has chapters only on Ammianus Marcellinus and the epitomizing tradition (Banchich 2007). Breviaria were often supposed to indicate a decline in learning. See the memorable phrase of Syme 1968, 105: ‘Who would otherwise have written, who would read them?’ Cf. Momigliano 1963, 85–6; den Boer 1972, 10; Schmidt 1988, 94; Brunt 1980; Bird 1984, 71–2; Sehlmeyer 2009, 140–212. The idea has been refuted often enough: G. Kelly 2010; Sánchez Vendramini 2012. 32 One could also add the Histories of Orosius. 31



  Genre

9

before the coverage expands when narrating the fourth century. Frigeridus (FHistLA 10) is similarly taken to be a successor of Sulpicius and an historian of exclusively contemporary events, but the high number of books (at least 12) and the rapid pace of his narration suggest either that the work consisted of short books or covered a substantial time span. The works written under the successor kingdoms mirror the common practice of historians covering a large chunk of Roman history. The History of the Goths of Cassiodorus (FHistLA 17) covered the past of the Goths from their distant origins until the reign of Theoderic. Other works took the establishment of the current rulers as a starting point and narrated from there until their authors’ own times: Secundus of Trent (FHistLA 19) seems to have started with the arrival of the Langobards in Italy, whilst Maximus of Zaragoza (FHistLA 20) may have started when the Visigoths settled in Spain. The evidence for Roterius (FHistLA 18) is too meagre and problematic to allow conclusions. Still, by starting with the establishment of a particular kingdom, these later historians by and large conform to the pattern observed for earlier historians of Rome, who covered the whole of the history of Rome or chose a constitutional change as a starting point. A third cluster within secular historiography has already been described: histories that focus on particular successor kingdoms.33 Usually, such histories were written from within the kingdom they dealt with (Cassiodorus, Secundus of Trent, Roterius, Maximus of Zaragoza), but the earliest preserved example, the Getica of Jordanes, is an exception to the rule, for it was written in Constantinople by someone who had served in the Roman army.34 This shows how the tradition of historiography transplanted itself into new political surroundings. Finally, there is a group of works about which we know too little to be able to classify them (Favius (FHistLA 11), Consentius (FHistLA 12), and Ablabius (FHistLA 13)). In each case, there is doubt as to whether they even deserve a place in this collection, but if they do, they would be classified as secular histories. The second major genre, ecclesiastical historiography, is a rare bird in later Latin historiography. Within the time frame of this volume, only two instances can be cited, each modelled on a Greek work. In 402–3 Rufinus of Aquileia translated the Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius of Caesarea 33

This is what medievalists call national histories and origo writing: Wolfram 2003a; Pizarro 2003; Plassmann 2009, 2016. We do not adopt such a usage: see Coumert 2007; Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a, XXXVI; Pohl 2020. 34 Cf. Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017 and 2020.

10 Introduction and continued it until the reign of Theodosius I (379–95). Around 545, Cassiodorus modelled his Historia tripartita, containing translated extracts from the Greek church historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, on a similar work by Theodore Lector, composed c. 518.35 The only ecclesiastical history with no direct link to the East is that of Bede, composed in 731.36 Each of these works is formally distinct from the others, illustrating that there was no clear tradition of writing ecclesiastical history in the West. The reasons why ecclesiastical history did not take off in the West are difficult to determine. Lack of literary authority may have played a role. Jerome’s translation of Eusebius’ chronicle became the point of reference for most of the Latin chronicle tradition, with almost all of them continuing his work or his continuators.37 Jerome also planned to compose an ecclesiastical history,38 but this work never eventuated, and one is left wondering if it would have had the same impact on later historiography as his chronicle. It has also been suggested that the See of Rome sought to legitimize its dominant position in the West by focusing on its foundation by St Peter and was therefore reluctant to submit itself to a historical narrative that could illustrate how Rome had changed its position in the past. Instead, the history of the See of Rome was the Liber pontificalis, a series of biographies of its bishops, showing how they preserved (or occasionally did not preserve) the Petrine heritage.39 Thus, the ecclesiastical centre did not promote historiography as a favoured genre either. More broadly, it is clear that besides chronicle writing, the preferred literary medium for Christians to write about the past was biography, as the flowering of ha­ giography in this period illustrates. Whilst in Greek we see ecclesiastical histories often taking positions in doctrinal disputes, with evidence for church histories being written by all sides,40 there is little evidence for such a role in the West – even though there are good reasons to believe that Cassiodorus’ Historia tripartita wished to make a statement about Justinian’s church policy and the condemnation of the Three Chapters.41 For example, Donatism, which was the longest-lasting schism in the West 35

For the date of Cassiodorus, see Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 287. Note that in the ninth century, Anastasius the Librarian planned to write an ecclesiastical history for which he drew on Greek sources: see CHAP s.v. Around 800, a scribe at Lorsch called a compilation of Gregory of Tours and Pseudo-Fredegar historia ecclesiastica: Reimitz 2015b. 37 Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 126–31. 38 Jerome, Life of Malchus 1. 39 Kany 2007, 576; Blaudeau 2016, 129. 40 Van Nuffelen 2018a. 41 As was noticed by Gregory the Great, Letter 7.31; Beatrice 2001b, 255–6; Delacenserie 2016; Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 287. 36



  Genre

11

and one in which history played an important role, did not produce histories, nor did African Catholics. A historical content has been alleged for two lost works by the Donatist Tyconius, but as we argue below, these were in fact theological treatises (FHistLA 23). In sum, the absence of ecclesiastical history in this collection reflects its weak position in later Latin historiography in general. Under the label sacred history we place histories that deal with biblical history. Moses, as author of the Pentateuch, and the authors of the historical books of the Old Testament were ranked as historians, and the Gospels were considered to be accurate histories of the life and deeds of Christ.42 By extension, the label also includes other works that narrated the same subject matter. There are not that many examples of non-­biblical works that limit themselves to sacred history, whilst sacred history was an obvious part of chronicles. Arator’s versification of the Acts of the Apostles belongs here, as do the Histories of Pseudo-Hegesippus (FHistLA 8), which narrated the history of the kings of Israel. The other work of Pseudo-Hegesippus points to a somewhat larger group of works that are also ranked as sacred history: histories of the Jews, especially those adapted from Flavius Josephus.43 Besides Pseudo-Hegesippus’ adaptation of Josephus’ War, a translation of that same work is (probably wrongly) attributed to Rufinus of Aquileia, whilst in the sixth century Cassiodorus ordered a translation of the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus to be made.44 Another translation from a Greek work on Jewish antiquities circulated under the name of Philo.45 The presence of only a single work belonging to this genre in this collection reflects the fact that it was a genre that was rarely practised, even if sacred history as a subject was ubiquitous in chronicles and exegesis. As has already been said, we have excluded chronicles from this collection. Yet the genre deserves a brief discussion here because there are some points of contact with the fragmentary works edited in this collection. We use the term chronicle here to designate any type of chronographic work. Following Burgess and Kulikowski (2013) with some modifications,46 the

42

Augustine, On Christian doctrine 2.27; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.14.3; Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical history 5.24; Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 1.51–3. 43 Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the destruction of Jerusalem: Somenzi 2009; Leoni 2016; CHAP s.v. For the position of Flavius Josephus within sacred history, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a, XLIX. 44 For further references, see CHAP s.v. and Levenson and Martin 2016, who argue that the attribution to Rufinus is in fact humanistic. 45 Jacobson 1996; CHAP s.v. 46 See further Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a, L–LVII.

12 Introduction genre can be subdivided into several subgenres: chronica, works that offer year-by-year entries on the model of Jerome; chronographies, works that collect various materials that provided information about chronology such as king lists and Easter tables; consularia, annotated lists of consuls; fasti, unannotated lists of consuls; chronicle epitomes, that is, compact presentations of the course of history that abandoned the year-by-year format of chronica (e.g. the chronicles of Isidore of Seville and Bede). If we were to include chronicles, there would not be that many additional entries. Indeed, we know of only three fragmentary (in the sense specified above) Latin chronicles attested: the Chronicle and the Fasti by Ausonius47 and the Epitome chronicorum by Lucentius.48 This suggests either that chronicles had a higher rate of survival and/or that many chronicles were used without acknowledgement by later authors and thus that it is harder to trace lost chronicles.49 The reconstruction of the extensive circulation of the Consularia Constantinopolitana50 and of the hypothetical Consularia Italica,51 which were widely used but never acknowledged, implies that the latter was a major factor. Interestingly, in our extant record chronicles are just as numerous as secular histories in Latin historiography for the period AD 300–800,52 but if we are right in assuming that chronicles were used differently, it may be that chronicles were in fact the dominant genre – at least in numerical terms. Second, the generic boundaries between chronicles and narrative histories (that is, the three genres surveyed above) were not firm. The Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus explicitly states in its preface that it combines sacred, secular, and ecclesiastical history, whilst its title refers to chronicle writing. Yet its narrative form sets it apart from most other chronicles. Similarly, Fulgentius’ On the ages of man turns the material found in chronicles into narrative. These works, which one might call narrative chronicles,53 hardly fit the classification proposed by Burgess and Kulikowski.54 A similarly narrative work was the Chronicle of Maximian of Ravenna, which is said to follow both Jerome and Orosius – a chronicon 47

Green 1991, 160–1 and 720; CHAP s.v. Liberatus, Breviarium 2; CHAP s.v. Lucentius probably wrote after Prosper Tiro, whose chronicle has the same title as his. It has been suggested that Lucentius is an error for Prosper (cf. CHAP s.v.), which would eliminate this work from our catalogue. 49 Note that lost chronicles have been hypothesized as sources for extant ones. 50 Burgess 1993, 195. 51 Mommsen 1892, 249–339. 52 Each has about 70 items out of a total of 232 Latin items in CHAP. 53 Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a, LIII; CHAP s.v. 54 Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 49. Hydatius, Chronicle 30 (37a) calls the chronicle of Severus ‘a different chronicle from this one’ (qui et chronica alia quam haec sunt …). 48

  Circulation



13

and a secular history (FHistLA 15). Moreover, precise definition of its nature is not helped by the fact that in medieval Latin and Greek chronicon and chronographus could indicate any history or historiographer.55 We leave the precise genre label open for Maximian, even if we think a narrative history is ultimately more likely. Secundus of Trent (FHistLA 19) is traditionally said to have composed a chronicle, but we argue that the standard reconstructions of his work are wrong and that the work was narrative in nature. In turn, the historiola of Maximus of Zaragoza (FHistLA 20) may have been a chronicle, but we have no evidence to decide the issue. The omnimoda historia of Dexter (FHistLA 4) is usually called a history, but its title suggests that it may have been a chronography. Finally, when scholars take Bruttius (FHistLA 21) to be a Christian author, they have tended to assume that he wrote a chronicle – tacitly linking chronography and Christianity. In fact, it is doubtful if he even wrote a history. Thus, while this collection excludes works that are certainly chronicles, we have included fragmentary works about which doubt may exist. Such doubt is itself interesting: it illustrates that the two main genres of historiography interacted, that authors may have formally innovated, and that complications are generated by the ambiguous vocabulary used in later periods to designate works of history. To conclude, this collection of twenty-three fragmentary historians cannot lay claim to be representative of the entire field, but we do see general trends reflected in the collection: the paucity of ecclesiastical and sacred history; the interaction between narrative works and chronicles; the dominance of works that cover substantial swaths of Roman history, often relying on earlier sources, up until the sixth century; and the continuation of historiography in the successor kingdoms. Only in the fragmentary historians do we find evidence for a local, non-Roman, focus in the fourth century.

4 Circulation The testimonies and fragments of the fragmentary works edited in this collection reveal several patterns of citation, each hinting at limited forms of circulation. The first and by far most dominant pattern is citation by individuals who were in personal contact with the author of the work, a pattern

55

See also Paulinus of Nola, Letter 3.3, who defines Eusebius’ chronicle as de cunctis temporibus historia.

14 Introduction visible in eleven out of the twenty authors in this collection. The historiographical endeavours of the senators Protadius (FHistLA 5), Naucellius (FHistLA 6), and their anonymous colleague (FHistLA 7) are only attested in the letters of Symmachus. The histories of Nummius Aemilianus Dexter (FHistLA 4) and Maximus of Zaragoza (FHistLA 20) are only attested in the On illustrious men written by their respective acquaintances Jerome and Isidore of Seville. The possible historiographical activity of Consentius (FHistLA 12) is known through Sidonius Apollinaris, who was in touch with his son. The history of Nicomachus Flavianus (FHistLA 3) is only attested in inscriptions set up by his descendants. The history of Symmachus the Younger (FHistLA 14) is attested in Cassiodorus, an acquaintance of Symmachus, and Jordanes, who was probably using the works of Cassiodorus. The known readers of the preserved Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes are, again, Cassiodorus and Jordanes, with the former responsible for bringing a manuscript from Constantinople to the West, thus triggering the Western circulation and survival of this text. It is likely that these three individuals moved in the same Latin-speaking circles in Constantinople.56 Marcellinus’ lost works (FHistLA 16) are only attested in Cassiodorus. In turn, Cassiodorus’ own History of the Goths (FHistLA 17) is only attested in his own Variae and Ordo generis Cassiodororum and in Jordanes, who was in some way or another in contact with him during his stay in Constantinople. Indeed, Jordanes is also the earliest known user of Cassiodorus’ Historia tripartita, composed in the Eastern c­ apital.57 As a final, and most extreme example, Pseudo-Hegesippus offers the only witness to his own lost rewriting of Old Testament history (FHistLA 8) through a reference in the preface of his extant reworking of Flavius Josephus’ War. These patterns are too pervasive to be accidental. As is well known, literary works in Antiquity circulated first among family and friends. Appreciation there would determine whether or not a work would achieve a wider circulation, independent of that original circle.58 The pattern just observed implies that the lost histories did not get beyond this first level of circulation: it can hardly be chance that more than half of the authors collected here display the same pattern. Interestingly, some works of this group were written for presentation or reading at court (certainly Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths; possibly the histories of Nicomachus Flavianus and Symmachus the Younger; likely also the comparison of 56

Full discussion in Croke 2001a; Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017 and 2020b. Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 283–90. 58 Starr 1987; Schipke 2013, 163. 57



  Circulation

15

Jerusalem and Constantinople by Marcellinus Comes). This clearly was not a guarantee of literary longevity: we should not imagine that the History of the Goths of Cassiodorus was passed from hand to hand among the elite of Ostrogothic Italy. History could be as ephemeral as panegyric. The second pattern is that of local preservation. Secundus of Trent (FHistLA 19) is cited by Paul the Deacon, active in the same region, and one excerpt survives in a manuscript. The chronicle of Maximian of Ravenna (FHistLA 15) is cited only in the Liber pontificalis of Agnellus of Ravenna. Assuming that the Life of Severus of Agde citing it is a local composition, the history of Roterius (FHistLA 18) seems to have circulated only in Visigothic territory. Likewise, the histories of Sulpicius Alexander (FHistLA 9) and Frigeridus (FHistLA 10) are cited only by Gregory of Tours, who presumably found them in a local manuscript. It is unlikely that these were Gallic compositions, for they are clearly written from an imperocentric perspective. There are also instances where there is geographical proximity, but great temporal distance (a century or more) between author and citing authority. Geographical proximity between author and citing authority can, logically, also be observed for works that circulated in a limited circle of friends and acquaintances. In only a few of those cases is there any geographical distance between author and citing authority, and in these cases we can explain why: Dexter was presumably in Spain but in contact with Jerome through letters; Cassiodorus wrote his History of the Goths in Italy but brought it himself to Constantinople, where Jordanes used it; Cassiodorus wrote the Institutions, in which the lost works of Marcellinus Comes, composed in Constantinople, are attested, in Italy after his return from exile in the East; and Symmachus the Younger wrote his history in Italy, which was presumably used by Cassiodorus and cited via Cassiodorus by Jordanes in Constantinople. A third pattern is the similarity in social context between author and citing authority. The two local histories edited in this collection (the anony­mous on Padua (FHistLA 2) and Carminius (FHistLA 1)) were composed by grammarians and are cited by works that are themselves heavily indebted to the learned tradition of school knowledge (Pseudo-Aurelius Victor, Origo gentis Romanae; Macrobius, Saturnalia). The senatorial circle around Symmachus was responsible for quite some historiographical production, and, as we shall detail below, there is additional evidence for historiography as a suitable elite pastime in Italy at the end of the fourth century. Symmachus the Younger and Cassiodorus belonged to the same social group. Christian belief or ecclesiastical function could also forge a bond between two authors, such as that between Dexter and Jerome,

16 Introduction or between Maximus of Zaragoza and Isidore of Seville. There are obviously also instances of social difference between the authors. The bishop Gregory of Tours citing two secular historians, Sulpicius Alexander and Frigeridus, may be the clearest illustration, but it is likely that there was also a social gap between Jordanes and Cassiodorus.59 Fourth, several of the authors edited here are said to have composed other, non-historiographical works, but the majority of these have been lost, too. The other works of Nicomachus Flavianus, Consentius, Symmachus the Younger, Maximian of Ravenna, and Maximus of Zaragoza are not preserved. The exceptions are Cassiodorus, whose corpus is well preserved, Marcellinus Comes, whose chronicle circulated in the West, presumably thanks to Cassiodorus, and Pseudo-Hegesippus, whose reworking of Flavius Josephus seems to have filled a need in the West for more detailed knowledge about the fate of the Jews. Regarding the first group, either the authors themselves were not sufficiently famous to keep interest in their works alive, or later generations did not find that their works filled a particular need. Fifth, when looking at citations and the use of non-fragmentary works, i.e. works preserved in the manuscript tradition, we notice that they tend to have wider citation patterns that are less bound by personal acquaintance or geographical and social proximity. This implies that these works had a wide circulation fairly soon after their publication. To give a few examples: Ammianus Marcellinus is preserved in two manuscripts, which derive from the same archetype.60 This is not an extensive tradition, but citing authorities provide evidence for a wider circulation: Priscian cites Ammianus in his grammar, composed in the early sixth century in Constantinople,61 whilst the Getica of Jordanes clearly used Ammianus, most likely through Cassiodorus.62 This would signal knowledge of Ammianus in early sixth-century Constantinople as well as Italy. It has been suggested that Claudian (in Rome) and Jerome (in Bethlehem) knew Ammianus’ work even earlier.63 The breviary of Festus is well represented in two classes of manuscripts, one from Spain, the other from Africa, and was used by Ammianus soon after its publication in 370.64 In the sixth 59

Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 290–6. Kelly and Stover 2016. Priscian, The institutes of grammar 9.51. 62 Jordanes, Getica 116–38 with Heather 1989, 111–16; Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2020b. 63 G. Kelly 2008, 182; Cameron 2012b, 351–2. But the link with Jerome argued for by Cameron has been rejected: Rosen 1982, 34, likely rightly so. 64 Arnaud-Lindet 1994; G. Kelly 2010. 60 61



  Circulation

17

century it was used in Constantinople, by Jordanes for his Romana, and by Isidore of Seville in Spain.65 Eutropius’ Breviarium was an absolute success story, with a wide circulation in both the West and the East, including a rare instance of the translation of a history from Latin into Greek. Use of the work, usually unacknowledged, is widespread in Latin and Greek historiography.66 Even more of a success story in the West were Orosius’ Histories, with a vast manuscript tradition and translations into European vernacular languages and Arabic, but also many citations and traces of use from Spain to Constantinople, as early as the fifth century.67 Less popular but extant works also reveal the same pattern: the Epitome de Caesaribus was used by Orosius in Africa a few decades after its publication, but also by Jordanes in Constantinople in the sixth century.68 If there is, broadly, a correlation between survival through the manuscript tradition and a wide spread of citing authorities in Late Antiquity, there are obviously exceptions. There are no traces of the Historia Augusta in Late Antiquity, except in the history of Symmachus the Younger.69 The two works from which the Excerpta Valesiana are drawn, the Origo Constantinis imperatoris and a work on the reign of Theoderic the Great, also have no known users.70 Yet such examples cannot undermine the general conclusion that survival in the manuscript tradition and wide citation coincide in many cases: indeed, both together imply a wider circulation than what we observe for most of the works edited in this collection. These five observations suggest that there were reasons why the works edited here were lost. A substantial proportion seems to have fallen at the first hurdle; that is, they never circulated outside of the circle of the author’s intimates.71 Indeed, public performance, as we may suppose for the history of Cassiodorus, was clearly not a guarantee for wider circulation. A second hurdle for a work was to achieve more than a geographically restricted circulation. This could be helped by the author achieving sufficient fame for his works to become sought after – but notwithstanding the praise that our witnesses heaped on Nicomachus Flavianus and 65

Mommsen 1882, xxvi; Wood 2012, 117. Bird 1993; Bleckmann 2018. 67 Mommsen 1882, xxvii; Arnaud-Lindet 1990; Wolf 1999, 14–16; Fear 2010, 24–5. 68 Festy 1999; Van Nuffelen 2012a, 105–9; below p. 152. 69 For an overview, see Callu, Desbordes, and Bertrand 1984–5; Zecchini 2010; see also below pp. 160–1. For the argument that the Historia Augusta was a family treasure of the Nicomachi, to whom Symmachus the Younger was related, see Festy 2004. 70 König 1987, 1997; Aiello 2014. 71 One might add that the actual first hurdle was finishing the work: we have no proof that Protadius (FHistLA 5) and the anonymous historian of Rome (FHistLA 7) ever finished their works. 66

18 Introduction Symmachus the Younger, there is no indication that they actually achieved such a status. This conclusion has an important consequence. Some of these histories, in particular those of Nicomachus Flavianus, Cassiodorus, and Symmachus the Younger, are said to have been widely used in the later tradition and to have left unacknowledged traces in a wide array of texts.72 We argue for each of these authors that there are good reasons to doubt such ascriptions, and the pattern of circulation just observed also argues against any assumption of a wide circulation, too. We have no reason to suppose that these lost works were the success stories that some scholars have made them out to be. This does not mean that they were not good or well-informed histories (we simply cannot tell), but they did not make it past the hurdles typical of ancient literary culture.

5  Social and Political Context Besides clustering in various genres and displaying distinct patterns of circulation, the fragmentary histories collected in this volume also reflect changing social and political contexts. We have too little information about some of these authors to contextualize them and their works (like Favius (FHistLA 11) and Ablabius (FHistLA 13)). Others, however, reflect particular roles played by historiography in society. In the following pages, we shall discuss the social, religious, and political roles of late antique Latin historiography. Starting with the social context, a first cluster is formed by Nicomachus Flavianus (FHistLA 3), Protadius (FHistLA 5), Naucellius (FHistLA 6), and the anonymous historian of Rome (FHistLA 7). The last three are all known from the letters of Symmachus, and all four reflect the historiographical activity of the senatorial elite at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. As we have seen, it is highly likely that all four produced works that covered substantial parts of Roman history and thus relied on earlier traditions. This fits into an interest in the more distant Roman past, in contrast to contemporary history, which, as the following examples will show, can be observed more widely in this period and social group.73 Pontius Paulinus, later bishop of Nola, composed a versified epitome of Suetonius, On Roman kings – presumably before

72

See our discussion below pp. 39–45, 148–53, 203–7. Demandt 1982; Näf 2010, 84 notes the lack of interest in contemporary history, with reference to Symmachus, Letter 4.18.5; Croke 2012, 412–15.

73



  Social and Political Context

19

his conversion to the ascetic life.74 Similarly, Ausonius composed several historical works in verse: the Caesars, tetrasticha on every emperor since Caesar, maybe running up to his own time;75 On pre-Roman kings, a work attested only in a fourteenth-century list of Ausonius’ works;76 and On usurpers, also attested only in the same list and based on the elusive Eusebius of Nantes.77 In addition, Ausonius tried his hand at a consular list, the Fasti, presumably also versified – a rare example of a consular list produced by a named elite individual.78 He also produced a chronicle, which is again attested only in the medieval list mentioned above.79 That same list also adds two works on Hebrew: On Hebrew and Athenian names of months and One book on the learning of the Hebrews and the interpretation of Hebrew names.80 L. Aurelius Avianius Symmachus, senator, urban prefect in 364–5, and father of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, asked his son to help him complete a series of eighty epigrams on recent and contemporary individuals. These epigrams are said to complement books of prose recently written by Avianius Symmachus, and their model are the epigrams in the Hebdomades of Varro. He quotes a couple of examples.81 His son Symmachus politely refuses to help his father, praising the quality of his verse over that of Varro.82 Not enough information is given to assess the nature of the work Avianius was preparing. Given that all quoted examples relate to contemporary senators, and that the model is Varro’s Hebdomades, a series of portraits of famous men, it is conceivable that Symmachus intended to produce a similar series of portraits, to which the epigrams were to be added as decoration. Alan Cameron interprets the work as an update of Varro’s Hebdomades,83 but the text does not allow that inference: the Hebdomades function as a model for the mixture of prose and poetry, possibly also for the biographical focus, 74

Ausonius, Letter 23; Paulinus, Poem 3. On the works discussed in this paragraph, see CHAP s.v. Green 1991, 161–8; Green 1999. His method of composition, with monosticha on lengths of reigns and descriptions of deaths remind one of the Breviarium Vindobonense (cf. Burgess 2014), a work that listed emperors with precisely that sort of information. Ausonius seems to have turned lowlevel historical genres into high art. 76 Green 1991, 720. 77 Green 1991, 720; Cameron 2011, 404–5. On Eusebius, presumably early fourth century, see FGrHist 101; BNJ 101; CHAP s.v.; De Cicco 2013–14 and 2018; Bleckmann and Gros 2016. 78 Green 1991, 160–1; Coskun 2002. 79 Green 1991, 720. Croke 2001b, 300 argues that it was intended to rival Jerome’s translation of Eusebius. Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 128 suggest a Christianized version of the earlier chronicles of Nepos and Castor. 80 Green 1991, 720. 81 Symmachus, Letter 1.2. 82 Symmachus, Letter 1.3–4. Cf. Courtney 2003, 447–51. 83 Cameron 2011, 371–2. 75

20 Introduction but there is no hint that Symmachus planned a continuation. This interest in history and in traditional models reflects the nexus between elite status and education that marks the Roman world.84 The early history of Rome was taught in schools, as the anonymous fourth-century Origins of the Roman people and On illustrious men of Rome, incorporated into the corpus Aurelianum, testify. But to possess that knowledge was only part of the elite habitus in the fourth century: one also ought to be able to deploy it aptly and in novel ways. In Ausonius we sense a real urge to do something original with that traditional body of knowledge by offering versifications of well-known facts or of the prose work of other authors. Similarly, the versification of Suetonius by Paulinus combines deference to a literary model, antiquarian interest, and literary creativity. Avianius Symmachus followed a model (or maybe unearthed one: there is not much evidence for imitation of the Hebdomades), but applied it to contemporary events. Such a desire to be original may lie behind Protadius’ decision to write a history of Gaul, albeit based on Caesar and Livy. Naucellius shared the interest in the distant past of Rome and contributed to it by translating a Greek work on the topic. The desire to do something original with political biography, which had a rather negative reputation in this period, may be one of the driving forces behind the Historia Augusta.85 We thus have good evidence for historiography as a suitable elite pastime, one pursued by reworking traditional knowledge into new forms and by applying old forms to recent events. As most of our evidence comes from two geographically and socially diverse sources, Ausonius and Symmachus, there may be reason to think that historiography was practised equally intensely elsewhere, wherever good educational institutions and literary circles existed. But this must remain speculation. The elite individuals we see enjoying themselves with history are mostly pagan, and this has led to the idea that writing history and circulating manuscripts of Roman historians like Livy was part of the so-called ‘pagan

84

For this nexus in relation to historiography in Late Antiquity, see Eigler 2003; Cameron 2011; Van Nuffelen 2012a, 63–92. For Antiquity in general, Nicolai 1992. 85 Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2013 on Julian, Misopogon 29.358CD; Van Nuffelen 2017 on Ammianus Marcellinus and the biographer Marius Maximus (Ammianus 28.4.14: ‘Some of them, hating learning as they hate poison, read Juvenal and Marius Maximus with tolerably careful study; though, in their profound laziness, they never touch any other volumes; why, it does not belong to my poor judgment to decide. Whereas, considering the greatness of their fame and of their parentage, they ought to pore over many and varied works…’ tr. Rolfe) and the Historia Augusta.



  Social and Political Context

21

resistance’ against the new Christian empire.86 For some individuals their interest in the Roman past may indeed have been supported by their paganism: the interest in Neoplatonism and antiquarianism in Rome that we find in the oeuvre of Macrobius probably betrays his paganism.87 This dynamic can also be observed in reverse among Christian authors: Jerome intended to give Latin Christians a history, and Dexter (FHistLA 4) likely wished to do the same. That does not mean that the Roman past was always used polemically by pagans against Christianity, that an interest in the Roman past was a sign of paganism, or that Christians wrote history only for apologetic reasons. Rather, as we have seen, interest in the Roman past was part of the social habitus of being an elite Roman. Indeed, a Christian like Ausonius fully shared in this habitus; in fact, besides the letters of Symmachus, his works are our best evidence for it. Pontius Paulinus, later Paulinus of Nola, also dabbled in historiography. The history of Nicomachus Flavianus (FHistLA 3), in some scholarship held to be the prime example of an anti-Christian history, might have been dedicated to Theodosius I, a very Christian emperor, rendering it unlikely that it was an anti-Christian polemical work. Nor was secular historiography practised only by pagans: Ausonius is a case in point, and Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus (FHistLA 10) was a Christian. In some cases, it may be possible to detect polemical digs against Christianity, like those some scholars have perceived in Ammianus Marcellinus and the Historia Augusta.88 Yet in the works edited in this collection there is no evidence for such polemic, and we must start out from the fact that the late fourth-early fifth c­entury ­interest in historiography was first and foremost a social habitus. In sum, we do not deny that particular literary interests often went hand in hand with paganism, but religion was always only one factor in the social 86

E.g. de Labriolle 1948; Alföldy 1952; Bloch 1963; Momigliano 1963; Paschoud 1975a; Bonamente 1979; Lana 1979; Zecchini 1993; Festy 2004; Ratti 2011, 2012. ‘Pagan historiography’ is often considered to be a useful label: Birley 2003; Liebeschuetz 2003. An extensive critique of the idea can be found in Cameron 2011, with a riposte in Lizzi Testa 2013. See also Jones 2014 for a view close to that of Cameron. 87 Cameron 2011, 253–65; Kaster 2011, xxi argues that Macrobius was a Christian. The idea is untenable: Goldlust 2010, 11–19; Jones 2014, 151–7; Chiai 2013; Van Nuffelen 2016. 88 On Ammianus Marcellinus, see Barnes 1998, 79–94; on the Historia Augusta, see now Rohrbacher 2016. Historia Augusta scholarship has detected so many allusions to Christian literature that its supposedly strongly anti-Christian author has become the most avid reader of contemporary Christian literature in the fourth century. Given the way such works circulated in personal networks, we are to assume that the author was well embedded in Christian networks. This would, in fact, make it likely that he was actually a Christian (see Mundt 2001). If one wishes to avoid this conclusion, scholars should raise the bar significantly for what counts as an allusion.

22 Introduction ­ otivation of individuals in this period. We thus reject the idea that an m opposition between paganism and Christianity was the defining feature of late Roman social and literary life. It was one element in a complex social mix, which played a greater or smaller role depending on the precise circumstances and individuals. At any rate, it is important to stress that there is little or no evidence to substantiate a strongly anti-Christian outlook for any of the works edited in this collection. Finally, there is the question of the political role of late antique Latin historiography. In line with earlier tradition, Latin historiography of the fourth and early fifth century had its geographical centre in Rome and Italy: as we have just seen, there was a clear nexus between senatorial social status, elite education, and interest in, and the writing of, histories on Rome. That nexus was perpetuated in the schools, and it is unsurprising that we notice that grammarians and teachers of rhetoric also ­produced historiographical works. As a literary genre that was closely tied to the political centre, historiography was obviously affected by the rise of a multipolar world in the Latin West. The abundant evidence for the ­writing of chronicles in Italy implies that historiography held strong there.89 For narrative history, the Ostrogothic kingdom may have provided a new impetus in terms of historiography: Symmachus the Younger (FHistLA 14) ­produced (presumably) a history of Rome in the traditional mould, whilst Cassiodorus drew on Roman ethnography to innovate and to ­compose a history of the Goths (FHistLA 17). Maximian of Ravenna (FHistLA 15) wrote when Italy was still under Ostrogothic rule, but the fragments we have point to a distinct interest in the East, where he had lived for quite a while. We do not know why Secundus of Trent was motivated to write a history (FHistLA 19), but he may have taken the arrival of the Langobards as a starting point. This does not yet turn his work into a predecessor of the seventh-century Origin of the Langobards or the History of the Langobards by Paul the Deacon (middle of the eighth century). Yet it does show that new rulers seemed to mark a new age that demanded historiographical treatment. In the sixth century, Constantinople had become a centre for Latin literature,90 as evidenced by the activity of the grammarian Priscian and the epic poems of Corippus. This was reflected in historiography, too. In this collection, evidence for this assertion is provided only by the two lost works of Marcellinus Comes (FHistLA 16), but 89

Van Nuffelen forthcoming sketches the changing representation of Italy in late antique historiography under the influence of the collapse of the Western Empire. Rochette 1997.

90



  Social and Political Context

23

his Latin continuation of the chronicle of Jerome is an important witness to this trend. Written from a point of view favourable towards Justinian, it shows that there was an interest in Latin works of historiography at the highest echelons of society.91 Almost diametrically opposite to Marcellinus Comes stands Jordanes, who composed in late Latin a breviarium of world and Roman history and an epitome of Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths. The Romana is rather critical of Justinian, whilst the low linguistic level of his works makes Jordanes an unlikely candidate for court historiography. Yet we know that Jordanes was in contact with other Latin ­speakers: he was clearly acquainted in some way with Cassiodorus; he is the earliest user of Marcellinus Comes; and he shares a Latin source with the unknown continuator of Marcellinus.92 The impulse for writing history in Latin in Constantinople clearly was generated not only by the court but also by those groups of Latin speakers that lived in Constantinople and, at least in the case of historiography, seem to have been in contact with each other in some way or another. Constantinople also provided inspiration for new forms of historiography. Cassiodorus became acquainted with the Historia tripartita of Theodore Lector (c. 518), and c. 545 he produced a similar work in Latin. Maximian of Ravenna may have been inspired by the narrative chronicles or chronological histories that crop up in the East from about 50093 – even if there is no evidence that he became acquainted with them in Constantinople itself. For a brief time, then, in the first half of the sixth century, Constantinople was a real centre of Latin historiography. That it did not hold this position for very long is one reflection of the general shift towards Greek in the East that becomes marked in the later sixth century. By the end of the sixth century, in particular after its conversion to Catholicism under Reccared I in 587, the Visigothic state attained a new centrality in historiographical texts produced in Spain. In his chronicle John of Biclar traces a transfer of the focus of divine benevolence from Rome to Spain, a process that is most fully visible in the history of Isidore of Seville.94 The Libri regnorum diversarum gentium by Roterius (FHistLA 18) was written under Reccared and may have traced the divinely willed unification of the Spanish peninsula – although the preserved fragment may raise doubts about its authenticity. The History of 91

Croke 2001a. Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017 and 2020b. 93 The first seems to have been Eustathius of Epiphaneia, writing ca. 500. A bit later are Hesychius of Miletus and John Malalas: CHAP s.v. On the term ‘chronological history’, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a, XXXIV. 94 Wood 2012, 231; Humphries 2019. 92

24 Introduction Wamba by Julian of Toledo may be many things, but it is, at the very least, a defence of the legitimacy of King Wamba.95 Although historiography was traditionally closely tied to the state, it is striking that successor kingdoms like that of the Visigoths did not immediately – at least as far as our evidence informs us96 – produce historiography centred on themselves. Rather, the process was slow: Visigothic historiography only becomes visible almost two centuries after the settlement of 418, when the conversion to Catholicism took place. The same seems to be the case elsewhere: Frankish history emerges with Gregory of Tours, about a century after Vouillé (507). With the interesting exception of Protadius (FHistLA 5), who was writing a history of Gaul in the late fourth century, Gaul did not receive an independent historiographical treatment, but was obviously subordinated to a focus on Rome97 – as may still be the case in Protadius. Gaul thus became a centre for historiography only with the rise of the Merovingians and even more strongly so with the Carolingian empire. Finally, the Vandals did not survive long enough to produce their own literature. Thus, historiography reflects the changing political make-up of the Latin West, but with an interesting time lag: writing history was not the first act of state building. Throughout this volume, we will have occasion to see different relationships between historiography and politics at work.

6  Conclusion: The ‘End’ of Latin Historiography? The history of later Latin historiography is usually written under the label of ‘end’, for the genre is often supposed to have come to an end in the period covered by this collection – at least, a clear break is supposed to have occurred.98 The Historia Augusta, Sulpicius Alexander, Frigeridus, Symmachus the Younger, and Cassiodorus have all been claimed as the last representatives of Roman historiography,99 even though Ammianus 95

Pizarro 2005. Heather 1991, 64–5 suggests that there may have been histories written in Toulouse in the middle of the fifth century. 97 Eigler 2013. Zecchini 1993, 242 argues that Sulpicius Alexander and Frigeridus were historians with a focus on Gaul, but that is certainly mistaken. 98 Cornell 2013, I, 10. Very few histories of Latin historiography cover the later period: Näf 2010; Zecchini 2016. For a nuanced account, see Duval 1983. Most assessments tend to be negative, stressing a loss of quality. For an early, more optimistic judgement, see Laistner 1940, 257: ‘the historical writing of our period, if it lacks both originality and distinction, is not contemptible. It stresses the value of chronology; and, while it contents itself in the main with compilation, at its best it displays reasonable and even critical use of the materials with which it works.’ 99 Momigliano 1960a, 217; Wes 1967, 122; Goffart 1988, 7; Zecchini 1993, 242 and 2003, 335. 96



  Conclusion: The ‘End’ of Latin Historiography?

25

Marcellinus is usually awarded that accolade.100 Others have noticed that no general history was written in Latin after 600.101 Such statements rarely specify the assumptions on which the identification of a particular end is based. Indeed, in order to define a break in what is a continuous history of writing history in Latin, one needs to identify the features of the genre that one sees disappearing and, therefore, the features one considers essential to Roman historiography.102 The rise of Christianity has been said to have changed the nature of Roman historiography, allowing some scholars to situate the end of Roman historiography around AD 300.103 Yet Christianity was slow to impact on Latin historiography. It was one of the aims of Jerome to give Christians a Christian history (see also Dexter (FHistLA 4)), and, as we have seen, typically Christian genres like ecclesiastical history and sacred history were minor presences in Latin. There is little evidence of a strong Christian flavour in Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths, and if Symmachus the Younger quoted Orosius, his history seems to keep the traditional focus on the Empire and its emperors. Moreover, emphasis on Christianity risks granting it too much credit as the sole force behind transformation in society and culture, discounting the importance of political fragmentation and the concomitant changes in the make-up of the elite. Indeed, the decline of the political order went hand in hand with a disappearance of the ­cultural habitus that marked the Roman elite in which high-level learning and ­linguistic ability were virtually identical with social and political prestige and power.104 Gregory of Tours’ Histories is as much the product of this deeply changed sociocultural context as it is of Christianization.105 In their identification of end points, scholars have also tended to privilege large-scale narrative histories as the paradigmatic manifesta­ tion of historiography. In these terms, Ammianus Marcellinus and his putative successors Sulpicius Alexander and Frigeridus appear as the last Roman ­historians. Late antique authors did consider such histories 100

Lana 1979, 25: ‘l’unico vero storico dei secoli tardi dell’antichità’. Mortensen 2000, 366. One problem is that there is as yet no full overview of historiography in Late Antiquity that is not highly selective or strongly biased towards preserved works: Rohrbacher 2002; Marasco 2003; Zecchini 2009. Schmidt in Herzog 1989 is complete but only reaches the year 374. 103 Cornell 2013, I, 10; Siniscalco 1981; Goffart 1988, 7. Croke 2003, 387 seems to trace a shift towards a ‘moral and religious, rather than purely literary or representational’ approach of history. But the last two adjectives do not fully describe ancient historiography, either, and moral judgement pervades ancient historiography, too. 104 Eigler 2003. 105 Heinzelmann 2001; Murray 2016. 101

102

26 Introduction as paradigmatic,106 but that does not mean it was the dominant form in which historiography presented itself in Latin in the second to fourth centuries. Most of the works produced in this period were up-to-date overviews of Roman history, usually brief – a tradition that was, as we have seen, very popular among the elite in the fourth century.107 Such works used to be associated with the cultural decline of Late Antiquity,108 but their political and ­educational purposes have now been better understood. They served as an aide-mémoire for the educated, and were often produced with a particular purpose in mind (like Festus, who published his breviarium in the run-up to Constantius II’s expedition to Persia).109 Chronicles have s­ uffered a similar fate in modern judgement, being deprecated vis-à-vis ‘large-scale’ histories.110 In fact, chronicle writing was, besides secular history, the main subgenre of Latin historiography, and it enjoyed high enough social p ­ restige to be practised by Ausonius, Jerome, and Cassiodorus. Similarly, scholars have tended to implicitly adopt the Imperial point of view: Latin historiography properly speaking is Roman history, and when the Imperial focus lapses, there is no longer any Roman historiography. If this is a reasonable position to take, given the close alliance between state power and historiography, it still does not provide us with a clear cut-off point. As we have seen, the Imperial focus was slowly replaced by a focus on successor kingdoms, especially in the sixth century, and even then historians relied on earlier texts that were Romanocentric.111 Moreover, during this period we still have Latin historiography focused on Rome and Constantinople (chronicles, but also narrative histories like that of Marcellinus Comes (FHistLA 16)). Instead of looking for particular cut-off points, it may be better to understand historiography in the period covered by this volume as an evolving continuation of Imperial Latin historiography. As is well known, in the second and third centuries there was a shift towards Greek as the language of culture in the Empire. In this period, very few histories were written in Latin, whilst major works like those of Cassius Dio and 106

Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 4.22. See above pp. 18–19. 108 See above p. 8. 109 Sánchez Vendramini 2012, 324. 110 In emphasizing the practical nature of chronicle writing, even Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a may remain somewhat indebted to this paradigm. 111 Cf. Reimitz 2015a. 107



  Conclusion: The ‘End’ of Latin Historiography?

27

Appian were composed in Greek.112 In Late Antiquity Greek remained the ­dominant language,113 but the fourth century marked something of a renaissance for Latin: this collection presents nine fragmentary authors until c. 450, to which one must add better-preserved authors, such as Ammianus Marcellinus and Aurelius Victor, and a substantial production of chronicles and consularia, not to mention several Christian works like the Chronica of Sulpicius Severus. As we have seen, in this period historiography was generally tied into a nexus of elite social status, education, and focus on the Roman state. The political troubles of the fifth century produced political fragmentation, social change, and the slow demise of traditional education. This produced shifts that we may also perceive in this collection: towards historiography as a clerical occupation, towards a focus on new political centres, and towards Christian learning, which remained heavily indebted to classical learning. By the end of the sixth century, the results of that process are clearly visible. Even then, Roman historiography in the sense traditionally understood by classical scholars was still being read and continued to influence later production, but it was no longer being p ­ ractised. Latin historiography, on the other hand, continued. 112

In FRHist, only 10 out of 110 authors might date to this period. For Imperial historiography, see Hose 1994. 113 Covering the period 300–800, CHAP records about double the number of entries for Greek compared to Latin (ca. 400 vs. ca. 200).

1

Carminius On Italy

Carminius was probably a grammarian of the second to fourth century AD, who wrote, besides a work De elocutionibus (On rhetorical delivery), a treatise De Italia, in which he collected, as far as the single fragment allows us to judge, information about the religious rituals of Italian peoples (the Etruscans and Sabines are mentioned). The work comprised at least two books. Given the general title, other book(s) may well have included non-religious material. It is difficult to establish a date for Carminius. He is cited by Servius as the author of De elocutionibus,1 whilst the work De Italia is attested in one quotation in the Saturnalia of Macrobius. This offers us a terminus ante quem of the end of the fourth–early fifth century, when Servius was writing.2 A possible terminus post quem is harder to establish. In one instance Servius quotes Carminius immediately after Marcus Valerius Probus, who died in the early second century AD.3 This might suggest that Carminius postdates Probus. Yet Servius need not have cited the authors in chronological order. Another argument is that other known bearers of the name lived in the first and second centuries,4 which militates against a late date. P. L. Schmidt, on the other hand, has argued for a fourth-century date, relying on an emendation in Servius, On Aeneid 7.445, where the reading Carmini has been proposed instead of Cornelii.5 As the quotation in On Aeneid 7.445 seems to rely on the work of Cominianus, who is dated in

1

Servius, On Aeneid 5.233, 6.638, 6.861, 8.406. The Saturnalia are to be dated slightly later, c. 430: Cameron 2011, 238. One could argue that Carminius wrote De Italia after Servius and before Macrobius, but that is altogether unlikely. 3 Servius, On Aeneid 8.406: Probus vero et Carminius … legunt. In 6.638 Carminius is cited with Varro. 4 Kroll 1918; Kaster 1988, 389. 5 exarsit in iras: communis sermo habet ‘ardeo illa re’, sed figuratius ‘ardeo in illam rem’ dicimus: et est specialis Cornelii elocutio. 2

28

Carminius 29 the early fourth century,6 Carminius should then postdate him. We thus get a date around the middle of the fourth century.7 Yet the emendation is far from necessary: Cornelii is not a corrupt reading, even if this particular Cornelius is hard to identify. In sum, Carminius can only be dated before the end of the fourth century, possibly between the second and fourth centuries. He is one of the few non-Republican authors used by Macrobius, and that author’s preference for older authorities may push one to support an early date.8 The ascription of De Italia to Carminius has also been doubted, and scholars have emended the passage to refer to Granius Flaccus or Granius Licinianus, the latter of whom is cited elsewhere in the Saturnalia as an authority.9 Yet the text is perfectly clear and coherent as it is, and in his references to Granius, Macrobius never mentions De Italia as a title. There is, thus, no philological reason to reject the text as it stands, and we must accept that Carminius wrote a De Italia. The uncertainty about his date renders contextualization difficult. If Carminius dates to the fourth century, his work would be similar to such compositions as the De origine Patavina (FHistLA 2), the Origins of the Roman people, and the On illustrious men of Rome,10 all treatises that arose from a school context and that have an interest in the early history of Rome.11 Indeed, Carminius’ interest in the Etruscan ritual mentioned in F1 seems to have been generated by the belief that the Romans had adopted it. There would also be a point of contact with the interests expressed by Symmachus in relation to the work of Naucellius (FHistLA 6), that is, in the early traditions of Rome, even if the title De Italia suggests a wider scope and Carminius probably intended to collect traditions about Italy as a whole. Interest in the early history of Italian peoples is attested in the first books of Cato’s Origines (first half of the second century BC),12 but did not receive, as far as we know, monographic treatment before Carminius. 6

Kaster 1988, 259; Schmidt in Herzog 1989, 123–5. Schmidt 1989a with detailed argument; Schmidt 1998. 8 Bruggisser 2012, 249. 9 Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.16.30 and 1.18.4. See the emendation in the apparatus below. The emendation is accepted by Kaster 1988, 389, but not in his editions of the Saturnalia (Kaster 2011a, 334 and 2011b, 438). Granius Flaccus is dated to the first century BC; Granius Licinianus to the second century AD: Funaioli 1912; Frateantonio 1998; Schmidt 1998; Hose 1994, 454–62. 10 CHAP s.v. 11 A graphic illustration of such interests can be found in the portrait of Victorius in Ausonius, Professors of Bordeaux 22. See Sehlmeyer 2004 and 2009; Gassman 2017. 12 FRHist 5. Carlà-Uhink 2017 argues that Italy was born as a coherent concept in the second century BC. 7

30 Carminius

De Italia F1: Macrobius, Saturnalia 5.19.12–14 (Kaster 2011a, 334; Kaster 2011b, 436–9; tr. Kaster 2011b, 437–9, modified) 12 taceo illud Plautinum cum ait: mecum habet patagus morbus aes, et quod alibi Vergilius, Curetum sonitus crepitantiaque aera, 13 sed Carminii,13 curiosissimi et docti, verba ponam, qui in libro de Italia secundo sic ait: “prius itaque et Tuscos aëneo vomere uti cum conderentur urbes solitos in Tageticis eorum sacris invenio et in Sabinis ex aere cultros quibus sacerdotes tonderentur.” 14 post haec Carminii verba longum fiat si velim percensere quam multis in locis Graecorum vetustissimi aeris sonos tamquam rem validissimam adhibere soliti sunt. sed praesenti operi docuisse nos sufficit falces aëneas Maronis exemplo Graeci auctoris inductas.

12 I say nothing of that line where Plautus says: The clattering disease has bronze as its doctor,14 and what Vergil elsewhere says, the Curetes’ cries and clattering bronze,15 13 but I will quote the words of Carminius, a most careful and learned man, who in Book Two of On Italy says: “Thus I find that previously both the Etruscans used to use a bronze ploughshare in their rites of Tages, when they were founding cities, and among the Sabines the blades with which the priests had their hair clipped were made of bronze.” 14 After this quotation from Carminius I would be drawing things out too long should I choose to review in how many places the most ancient among the Greeks tended to use the sound of bronze as a very effective device. For the present purpose it is enough to have shown that Maro’s bronze blades are based upon a Greek model. Commentary The quotation occurs in a context where Macrobius is arguing that Vergil relied on Greek models. Quoting Vergil’s description of how Dido seeks to calm her passions with herbs cut by bronze blades,16 he argues that Vergil 13

The reading Granii was adopted by Willis 1963. Plautus, F 67 de Melo. The meaning of the quotation is unclear: de Melo 2011, 487 suggests that it may indicate that debt could lead to being beaten up. 15 Vergil, Georgics 4.151. 16 Vergil, Aeneid 4.513–14. 14



De Italia

31

relied on a lost tragedy by Sophocles (Rhizotomoi, i.e. Rootcutters).17 He then continues by arguing that bronze blades were used in sacrifices, and in particular in sacrifices to soothe or heal people. The fragment itself also appears to be interested in the material bronze, and it is therefore possible that Carminius was driven by the same interest as Macrobius, namely to explain Vergil. Tages, the son of Genius and the grandson of Jupiter or Hermes, was a mythical figure who was ploughed up by Etruscan farmers. A body of religious texts became ascribed to him.18 The Romans assumed that they had adopted the Etruscan practice of founding cities.19 If so, then this may be the reason why the ritual was of interest to Romans like Carminius. The Sabine ritual is unattested elsewhere, but according to Cato, the Romans had borrowed much from them.20 17

Sophocles, F 534 Lloyd-Jones. Cicero, On divination 2.50. On Tages, see further Weinstock 1932; Wood 1980; Aigner-Foresti 2001; Haack 2003; Thomson de Grummond 2006. On the role of Tages in Late Antiquity, see Briquel 2004–7; Guillaumont 2013. 19 Varro, On Latin language 5.143; Livy 1.144.2; cf. Carlà-Uhink 2017, 184–5. 20 FRHist 5 F51. Cf. Carlà-Uhink 2017, 177–8. 18

2

Anonymous On the origins of Padua

A work of local history, De origine Patavina is attested in the Origo gentis Romanae (Origins of the Roman people), a work that summarizes the early history of Rome from Janus to Romulus. Composed by a grammarian, probably a pagan, the Origins of the Roman people most likely dates to the second half of the fourth century,1 though a date at the end of the sixth century has been defended.2 It was transmitted as part of the corpus of Pseudo-Aurelius Victor. Earlier scholarship was sceptical, but it is now considered to be a genuine work of historiography, reflecting the erudite interests of certain circles in the second half of the fourth century.3 It relies heavily on Vergil as an authority for Rome’s past.4 The De origo Patavina can only tentatively be dated. It is likely that it postdates Vergil, although the Antenor legend which it presupposes was already known in the second century BC. If this leaves us with very wide termini, the title (De origine …) is attested only in Late Antiquity, and the likely content of the work, an erudite account of the origins of Padua, finds its best parallels in the learned culture of the fourth century.

De origine Patavina T1: Pseudo-Aurelius Victor, Origins of the Roman people 1.5–6 (Richard 1983, 77 ll. 20–3: cf. Pichlmayr 1966, 4 ll. 12–15; Sehlmeyer 2004, 30) Cum procul dubio constet ante Aeneam priorem5 Antenorem in Italiam esse pervectum eumque non in ora litori proxima, sed in interioribus locis,

1

Momigliano 1958, 59–63; Schmidt 1989b, 187; Sehlmeyer 2004, 19; Briquel 2005; Smith 2005. Puccioni 1958; Richard 1983, 18. Smith 2005. 4 Schmidt 1975, 1589. 5 [priorem] Sehlmeyer. 2 3

32



De origine Patavina

33

id est Illyrico6, urbem Patavium condidisse, ut quidem idem supradictus Virgilius illis versibus ex persona Veneris apud Iovem de aerumnis Aeneae sui conquerentis: Antenor potuit mediis elapsus Achivis Illyricos penetrare sinus atque intima tutus et cet.

Quare autem addiderit “tutus”, suo loco plenissime annotavimus in commentatione, quam occoepimus scribere7, cognita ex libro8, qui inscriptus est de origine Patavina.

It is beyond doubt that Antenor reached Italy first, before Aeneas, and that he founded the city of Padua not on the coast near to the beach, but in a place inland, namely Illyricum, as is clear from the same Vergil, mentioned above, with these verses from the mouth of Venus complaining to Jupiter about the hardships of her dear Aeneas: Antenor, having escaped from the midst of the Greeks, managed to penetrate the coast and inland of the Illyrians in safety etc.9

Why he has added tutus (safe), we have explained in full detail in its proper place in the commentary that we have begun to write, using the information found in the book that is titled On the origins of Padua. Commentary The region of the Veneti was reputed to have been settled by the Trojans and Antenor, a tradition already attested in Cato the Elder and widespread afterwards.10 Padua was hence also reputed to be a foundation of Antenor, as stated explicitly by Vergil in the passage that is partially quoted by the Origo.11 The Vergilian passage, by Late Antiquity certainly the greatest ­authority, is not without its difficulties. It has Antenor penetrate Illyricum  6

[id est Illyrico] Richard, Sehlmeyer. hoc scribere coepimus Pichlmayr. cognita ex eo libro Richard.  9 Vergil, Aeneid 1.243–4. 10 Cato the Elder, FRHist 5 F58; Livy 1.1.1–3; Strabo, Geography 5.212, 12.543, 12.552, and 13.608; Pliny the Elder, Natural history 6.5; Justin, Epitome 20.1.8. See Cornell 2013, III, 107–9. 11 Vergil, Aeneid 1.243–7. For the legend, see Braccesi 1997.  7  8

34 Anonymous and Dalmatia and sail up the Timavus (modern Timavo in Trieste), but Padua is situated much further west. The commentator Servius explains this by stating that King Henetus, from whom Venetia took its name, came from Illyricum, and simply notes the error regarding the river.12 The author of the Origo, or a later interpolator, drew on another verse from Vergil to gloss in interioribus locis as in Illyrico. The Vergilian passage, then, was not without its problems for a commentator. Servius also comments on tutus, pointing out that the Liburni, in whose territory, according to him, Antenor landed, were a most savage nation: Antenor was thus ‘safe even among savage nations’ (tutus est etiam inter saevos populos).13 The author of the Origo remarks that he had started work on a commentary on Vergil, thus rendering it likely that he was a grammarian.14 To that end, he drew on a work entitled De origine Patavina,15 clearly a work on the origins of Padua. The title inserts itself into a series of late antique works, like the diptych of Jordanes (De summa temporum vel origine actibusque gentis Romanorum and De origine et actibus Getarum; 551), Isidore of Seville’s History of the Goths (also called De origine Gothorum), and the anonymous works Origo Constantini imperatoris (fourth century), Origo gentis Langobardorum (672–88), and, obviously, the Origo gentis Romanae itself. It should be noted that, except for the works by Jordanes, we cannot be sure that the titles are contemporary with the works themselves.16 De origine Patavina is the only attested usage of this type of title in relation to a city. Local history is very well attested in the Greek world,17 a tradition that was continued in the late antique writing of patria and other forms of local history.18 In Latin, however, De origine Patavina is the only known example from Late Antiquity, and there are no explicit attestations for earlier periods, either.19 De Italia of Carminius (FHistLA 1) and the History of 12

Servius, On Aeneid 1.243–7. Servius, On Aeneid 1.243. 14 Kaster 1988, 169–96. 15 Momigliano 1958, 70 wrongly states that the author of the Origo gentis Romanae prepared a summary of the work on Padua. Nor does the text allow the suggestion that the author of the Origo gentis Romanae also authored the De origine Patavina (see the scholarship listed in Richard 1983, 112). 16 An exception is Origo gentis Romanorum ex quo primum in Italia regnare coeperunt, which Bleckmann et al. 2017 argue is the original title of the Breviarium Vindobonense, dated to the first half of the fourth century. For medievalists’ usage of origo as a term to denote a genre (history of a people from its very origin), see our introduction, p. 9, and Plassmann 2009 and 2016. 17 Chaniotis 1988; Harding 2007; Clarke 2008. 18 Focanti 2018. 19 This obviously does not exclude the fact that local history was transmitted through other literary genres in Latin: see, for Late Antiquity, Bailey 2003. 13



De origine Patavina

35

Gaul of Protadius (FHistLA 5) also have a focus that is not on Rome itself, and it may be significant that all of these works date from Late Antiquity (with some reservations regarding Carminius).20 Given the similarity in title between the Origo gentis Romanae and the Origo Patavina, and given the fact that the latter, in all likelihood, also dealt with the Vergilian passage, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the work was similar in character. In other words, it may well have been the product of a local grammarian who summarized various traditions regarding the early history of Padua. In this way, it was a product of the same culture of learning that produced many of the historiographical works of the fourth century. 20

For the suggestion that the rise of local history in Latin is the consequence of the weakening of the ideological focus on Rome in Late Antiquity, due to political changes and military defeat, see Van Nuffelen forthcoming.

3

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus History

Of senatorial descent, Nicomachus Flavianus had an illustrious career, culminating in his appointment as praefectus praetorio Italiae in 390–2. After the end of his tenure, in 393, Flavianus chose the side of the usurper Eugenius (392–4) and was again appointed as PPO Italiae for 393–4 and as consul in 394.1 At the defeat of Eugenius in that year, he committed suicide. Flavianus was known to be a pagan, and he figures as a character in the Saturnalia of Macrobius. Since there is now broad agreement that the Carmen contra paganos was not directed against Flavianus,2 there is little evidence to suppose that Flavianus was a militant pagan. His participation in the usurpation of Eugenius, whom Theodosian propaganda styled as anti-Christian,3 need not have been driven by his paganism. As argued by A. Cecconi, his conflict with Theodosius arose over concrete policy issues, resulting in the emperor replacing him as prefect.4 Flavianus fits the picture this collection gives of the late fourth-century senatorial elite: well-educated and well-read in classical literature, he was remembered by his descendants as an historian. Because Flavianus has been stated to be the author of what we call below the Hartke- and Leoquelle, that is, a hypothetical Latin source from the fourth century, scholarship on Flavianus is bound to make the head of the uninitiated spin. Because of the methodological principles that underpin this edition, we do not accept such a conflation of the results of Quellenforschung with the testimonies for the history of Flavianus: one cannot pick a name from the record and stick it onto a hypothetical source. Indeed, as we shall see below, even the suggestion by proponents of the 1

PLRE I, 347–9 (15); G. Kelly 2018. See also the studies referenced in n. 63, p. 47 below. Cracco Ruggini 1979; Errington 2006, 253; Cameron 2011, 273–319; Consolino 2013, 94–5, with further references. But see Coskun 2004 and Ratti 2012 in favour of the identification. 3 See Salzman 2010, emphasizing the role of Ambrose in the representation of the war against Eugenius as a pagan–Christian clash. Cf. Szidat 1979; McLynn 1994, 350–2. 4 Cecconi 2013, 156. See also McLynn 1994, 343–4; Errington 2006, 140–1; Salzman 2010, 200–3. 2

36



Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

37

hypothesis that Flavianus is the only possible candidate for the authorship of the Hartke- and Leoquelle is incorrect. This means that the results of the Quellenforschung are irrelevant in the discussion of Flavianus’ history. For the sake of completeness, however, we offer a brief overview of these findings, suggesting that scholars have too easily lumped together results that may point in different directions. Three works of a historiographical nature have been attributed to Flavianus: a history, a Latin translation of Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana, and a doxographic work called De dogmate philosophorum or De vestigiis philosophorum. The last two have to be eliminated from consideration: the idea that a letter of Sidonius Apollinaris (T3) attests to a translation misconstrues the Latin, and a De dogmate philosophorum, said by scholars to be composed by a ‘Flavianus’, is attested only in John of Salisbury (twelfth century), which is suspiciously late. There are, in addition, many other possible identifications for that particular Flavianus, and, at any rate, it is clear that De dogmate philosophorum was an anonymous work that quoted ‘Flavianus’, and hence that ‘Flavianus’ was not its author. All of this leaves Flavianus as the author of a history. Given the paucity of evidence, there is little that can be said about the history of Nicomachus Flavianus. The two witnesses to it are inscriptions commissioned by members of Flavianus’ family, even if T1 is quoted from an imperial letter. This conforms to the pattern of limited circulation attested for many of the works in this collection: testimonies and fragments tend to come from a limited group of people who were directly connected, in one way or another, to the author. On the basis of these inscriptions, it is generally stated that the work carried the title Annales, that it was dedicated to Theodosius I, and that it was published during or shortly after Flavianus’ quaestorship and prefecture (be it in 383–4 or 389–92: on this debate, see below).5 As we argue, because T1 comes from a text that consciously seeks to deflect attention from the high treason committed by Flavianus, there are good reasons to be sceptical on all three counts. Annales was used as a title nowhere else in late antique historiography and is a generic term in the inscription. T1 expresses a wish on the part of Theodosius I that the history be dedicated to him, but it does not state the dedication as a fact. And if one rejects the dedication, T1 does not necessitate a date during or after Flavianus’ quaestorship and prefecture.

5

Bleckmann 1992, 400 and 1995, 95–6; Zecchini 1993, 57; Festy 1999, xvi; Prchlík 2011, 314 and 2012, 49; Cameron 2012b; Cecconi 2013, 163; Vitiello 2014c, 483.

38

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

It has been debated whether Flavianus’ history covered the Empire or the Republic, but rarely with good arguments. Those who believe that Quellenforschung has revealed the true extent of Flavianus’ work have defended the former option.6 Yet, as we shall see, Quellenforschung tells us nothing about Flavianus. Scholars who dissociate Flavianus from the Hartke- and Leoquelle tend to favour the idea that his work covered the Republic. The arguments have been summarized by C. Hedrick:7 Theodosius I is said to have been interested in the history of the Republic;8 the progeny of Flavianus, Flavianus Iunior and Dexter, are known to have corrected the text of Livy;9 and in Macrobius,10 Flavianus is depicted as having an interest in prodigies, which can also be found in Livy. None of these arguments is convincing: Theodosius’ alleged interest in the Republic does not preclude him from receiving dedications in other works, too. Moreover, as we have said, it is doubtful whether Flavianus’ history was actually dedicated to Theodosius. The copies of Livy’s text do not tell us anything about Flavianus’ further historical interests. Finally, some scholars have even suggested that Flavianus covered the whole of Roman history,11 which is just as possible as the other suggestions with equally little evidence to support it. Finally, it has been alleged that this history was anti-Christian.12 This is unlikely. If one accepts that Theodosius I wanted the work to be dedicated to him, it cannot have been militantly anti-Christian. The fact that T1 draws attention to the history in order to deflect attention away from Flavianus’ involvement in what by 431 (the date of the inscription) was depicted as an anti-Christian uprising, suggests a similar conclusion: if the work had been anti-Christian, it would have confirmed the official judgement of Flavianus as a danger to the Theodosian establishment, and as a  6

Hartke 1940, 74; Schlumberger 1974, 203 and 1985; Paschoud 2003, lxii; Festy 1995. Matthews 1973 and 1975, 231; Barnes 1976, 268; Grünewald 1992, 471–3; Hedrick 2000, 145–7; Cameron 2011, 634 and 690. Schlumberger 1985 addresses the arguments of Matthews and Barnes, but admits that certainty is impossible to reach. Bleckmann 2015, 114 highlights the fact that Roman historians tended to write histories up to their own time. This is true as a general tendency, but Flavianus’ contemporary Ausonius (CHAP s.v.) illustrates that, at least in verse, there were exceptions.  8 Epitome de Caesaribus 48.11–12.  9 Hedrick 2000, 181–2; Cameron 2011, 498–526: subscriptions to books 6–8 of Livy (Flavianus Iunior) and books 3–5 (Dexter). 10 Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.5.13. 11 Zecchini 1993, 56; Bleckmann 1995. Cameron 2011, 630 suggests that Flavianus wrote a brief epitome, apparently picking up the suggestion of Hartke 1940, 75. Anything goes. 12 Zecchini 1993, 55 suggests, for example, that Flavianus responded to the Chronicle of Jerome, for which there is no indication. Prchlík 2011, 320–1 argues that the aim was to placate Theodosius in response to Ambrose and the Altar of Victory controversy.  7



Flavianus and the ‘Hartkequelle’ and the ‘Leoquelle’

39

consequence, it would not have been able to serve its function as lightning rod in the inscription of 431.13 This leaves us with little more to affirm than that Flavianus composed a history, in all likelihood of Rome, at some point during his lifetime. This may seem disappointing after an abundance of scholarship proclaiming certainties, but a sober assessment of what we actually know is the only way to make progress.

Flavianus and the ‘Hartkequelle’ and the ‘Leoquelle’ The history of Nicomachus Flavianus has been claimed to have been an important yet unacknowledged source of pagan, Western, and senatorial material in late antique and Byzantine historiography. Such influence has been detected in three traditions:14 (1) a fourth-century Latin pagan tradition, namely Ammianus Marcellinus, the Historia Augusta, and the Epitome de Caesaribus;15 (2) a fourth-century Greek tradition, represented by Eunapius and, via him, the late fifth-century historian Zosimus;16 and (3) the so-called Leoquelle,17 a hypothetical source underpinning part of the Byzantine historical tradition, notably Peter the Patrician (sixth century), and, via him, the Excerpta Salmasiana II, Zonaras, Cedrenus, and Symeon the Logothete.18 The precise delimitation of where particular historians rely on Flavianus and the means by which his work reached them are matters of discussion among scholars who accept these conclusions. Conversely, suggestions that Flavianus was used by Jerome for his chronicle19 or that the Historia Augusta is actually the Annales of Flavianus,20 are not widely accepted, even if one group of scholars sees the descendants of Flavianus as the authors or keepers of the Historia Augusta.21 Depending 13

This rules out the claim made by Prchlík 2015 that the history was dangerous for Flavianus. The evidence proves the contrary: Cameron 2011, 630. 14 For overviews, see Bleckmann 1992, 396–410 and 1995; Zecchini 1993, 51; Paschoud 1998b, 82–4; 2002, xxxvii–xliii; and 2012; Festy 1999, xv–xx; Birley 2003, 129–32; Ratti 2003, 212–16; Prchlík 2011, 312–16. 15 Klein 1914, 53, relying on and responding to Seeck 1906; Hartke 1940, 27–36 and 1951, 329–34 and 400; Schlumberger 1974, 232 and 1985; Callu and Festy 2010, 126. 16 Hartke 1940, 74–81; Paschoud 1975a, 63–8 and 147–50; 1975b; 1989, 85–6; and 2003, lxi; Baldini 1984; Prchlík 2011; Baldini and Paschoud 2014; Bleckmann 2015. 17 Patzig 1894. 18 Bleckmann 1992, 2009, 2010, and 2015; Paschoud 1994; Fowden 1994, 165; Mecella 2017. For an alleged but very unlikely use by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, see Zivkovic 2010. 19 Ratti 1997 and 2001. 20 Ratti 2007a, 2007b, 2011, 2012, and 2016. For critique, see Paschoud 2017. 21 Hartke 1951, 243–55; Schlumberger 1974; Festy 2004; Vitiello 2014c, 489. For criticism, see Rohrbacher 2013, 169–72.

40

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

on one’s reconstruction of the relationship between the sources, the history of Flavianus is said to have covered the years AD 268–366,22 31 BC– AD 378,23 31 BC–AD 383,24 753 BC–AD 388/9.25 Reviewing this entire body of scholarship cannot be attempted here, and we shall address only two broader issues. First, is the identification of these source traditions with Flavianus admissible? This is a methodological point that should not be confused with the second one: Are these traditions accurately reconstructed? Regarding the first point, unless there is a clear textual connection between fragments attributed to a fragmentary author and traditions detected via Quellenforschung, such an identification cannot claim to be more than a possibility that is beyond proof.26 In the case of Flavianus, the fragments attest only that he wrote a history, not what kind of history nor its coverage. Indeed, scholars defending the identification have to accept that Flavianus wrote a history of the Empire, but the evidence of the fragments does not allow any conclusions regarding its coverage.27 We have no idea what histories were written and how many were lost in the fourth and fifth centuries: choosing a name that has been preserved in the absence of further evidence is arbitrary. It is usually assumed that there is no other candidate available for a history of Rome written at the end of the fourth century, but this collection offers at least two possible alternatives (Naucellius (FHistLA 6); Anonymous (FHistLA 7)). Moreover, B. Bleckmann has shown that we can detect other historiographical traditions on and from the fourth century28 – which shows that not only are there more candidates for the Hartke- and Leoquelle, but also more source traditions that could be attributed to Flavianus. It is, then, methodologically

22

Seeck 1906, 110; Hartke 1951, 243–55. Baldini 1984, 120–78. Baldini 2004, 146 hesitates between 378 and 383. 24 Schlumberger 1974 and 1985, 324; Bleckmann 1995, 96–7 (Bleckmann 1992, 401 suggests a starting date with Nerva); Festy 1997 and 1999, xvii; Paschoud 2003, lxii. 25 Zecchini 1993, 52–63. Vitiello 2014c also accepts a late date and suggests an intertextual game between Flavianus and the Historia Augusta. He sees the portrait of Constantine in the Historia Augusta as a critique of that of Theodosius in Flavianus. All of this is conjecture, based on the coincidence of the expression livor improborum in the inscription and in Historia Augusta, Life of Heliogabalus 35.1–3 (see the scepticism of Cecconi 2013, 156). Vitiello wishes to see ‘una commune psicologia’ in both texts (490), which cannot claim much strength as an argument. 26 Among those scholars who defend the attribution of these traditions to Flavianus, there is an awareness that caution is needed: Bleckmann 1992, 400; Schlumberger 2000, 397 reviewing Festy 1999; Prchlík 2012, 50; Bleckmann 2015, 113. See also Barnes 2004, 123; Cameron 2011, 629. 27 Scholars who study the career of Flavianus tend to be very reticent to accept the results of the Quellenforschung: e.g. Matthews 1973, 188; Grünewald 1992, 472; Hedrick 2000, 146. 28 Bleckmann 2007 and 2011a. 23



Flavianus and the ‘Hartkequelle’ and the ‘Leoquelle’

41

unwarranted to continue to ascribe a particular hypothetical source to Flavianus. The danger of not keeping Quellenforschung and the study of Flavianus separate is visible in attempts at attributing passages to Flavianus on the basis of the supposed character of his work, which is derived from a conflation of Flavianus’ biography with the findings of Quellenforschung.29 Discussions of the start and end date of Flavianus’ history tend to do the same.30 An illustration of the acrobatic reasoning imposed by the Flavianushypothesis can be found in Paschoud’s views regarding Zosimus. He argues that the providentialistic and anti-Christian passages in Zosimus derive from Flavianus. As these occur in the section ascribed to Eunapius as well as in the section for which Olympiodorus is the main source, Paschoud has to argue that both Eunapius and Olympiodorus used Flavianus. This in turn necessitates the hypothesis of a Flavianus auctus, for Olympiodorus’ history starts c. 408, well after the death of Flavianus. The much simpler and more convincing hypothesis is that Zosimus himself is responsible for the additions.31 Scholarship would be well served if we were to keep discussion of Flavianus separate from what we shall call the Hartke- and Leoquelle. What about the results of the Quellenforschung itself? We shall briefly offer an overview of its two main pillars, the ‘Hartkequelle’ and the ‘Leoquelle’.32 First, in the standard analysis of the sources of the Epitome de Caesaribus, which is dated after 395, J. Schlumberger collected parallels with Ammianus Marcellinus and Zosimus, building on the work of W. Hartke.33 Schlumberger notes a series of parallels between the Epitome and the biographical sections of Ammianus, running from Constantius II 29

E.g. Prchlík 2011 attributes Zosimus, New history 4.3.3 to Flavianus on such grounds. That a passage would fit the character of a lost work is always a very weak argument. 30 All proposals in the overview given by Festy 1999, xvii–xix do so. See also above nn. 22–25. The extensive discussion of Cameron 2011, 626–90 tackles many aspects of the Quellenforschung and has valuable observations, but should be used with caution, as he does not always represent the arguments of what he calls the Paschoud équipe correctly and some of his own solutions are mistaken (e.g. in following Roberto 2005 that the Excerpta Salmasiana II derive from John of Antioch; his suggestion of the existence of a Greek Kaisergeschichte): see Bleckmann 2015. 31 Baldini and Paschoud 2014. See the counterarguments by Cameron 2011, 644–58; Hartmann 2014; Van Nuffelen 2015b and 2018b. Note Schlumberger 1974, 237 and Festy 2001, who identify the sources of Flavianus. 32 The ‘Hartkequelle’ is a neologism we have coined in tribute to W. Hartke, who first argued for a shared source linking the Epitome de Caesaribus, Zosimus, and Ammianus Marcellinus (Hartke 1940). The term ‘Leoquelle’ goes back to Patzig 1896 and 1897. 33 Schlumberger 1974, 223–4. Cf. Hartke 1940, 59–74; Festy 1999 lists more parallels in the notes, but these are not very precise.

42

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

through to Gratian. There are no verbal parallels, except in one instance regarding Valentinian I.34 The possibility that Ammianus was used by the Epitome is excluded by Schlumberger on the grounds that the Epitome had a ‘primitive way of working’.35 He prefers the hypothesis of a shared source. A second series of parallels, with Zosimus, runs from Carinus (283–5) until 371/2 and relates to a wider array of topics.36 As Zosimus relied on Eunapius and the latter covered history after Dexippus (that is, after 270), Eunapius is likely to be his source. Schlumberger therefore concludes that Ammianus, Eunapius, and the Epitome have a common source, the so-called Hartkequelle, and he identifies this source with the history of Nicomachus Flavianus. Indeed, according to Schlumberger, Flavianus is the main source for the Epitome, even from Augustus onwards.37 Accepting, for the sake of the argument, that the parallels are convincing (although they are better established for Zosimus than for Ammianus),38 there is no proof whatsoever that the Hartkequelle can be attributed to Flavianus. Indeed, different reconstructions of the relations between these various texts are possible. To start with, there is – contrary to what is often assumed – no reason to assume that either series of parallels has anything to do with the other: there is no overlap between them, and they have different chronological termini. That they may derive from a single source is based on the mere assumption that the Epitome copies only one source at a time39 and that the author of the Epitome would not have had the ability to use Ammianus. But Ammianus’ history was probably finished by 395 and thus available.40 Indeed, the author of the Epitome could have used Eunapius, whose history was published in a first version, according 34

Ammianus Marcellinus 30.9.4; Epitome de Caesaribus 45.5–6. Schlumberger 1974, 210. 36 Schlumberger 1974, 183–207 and 235 (who states that the parallels run to the reign of Theodosius I, but on p. 229 he notes Epitome de Caesaribus 48.4 and Zosimus, New history 4.13.4 as the last parallel, relating to 371/2). He updates the analysis of Hartke 1940, 51–2, who only reached the death of the usurper Procopius in 366. Some of these parallels are verbal (Epitome de Caesaribus 36.2 and Zosimus, New history 1.73.1; Epitome de Caesaribus 38.8 and Zosimus, New history 1.73.3; Epitome de Caesaribus 40.20 and Zosimus, New history 2.12.3; Epitome de Caesaribus 42.7 and Zosimus, New history 2.54.1). 37 Cf. Amici 2002, 8–11. 38 The Quellenforschung on the Epitome de Caesaribus is the basis on which further speculation is built: e.g. Paschoud 1992 argues that Ammianus Marcellinus in Book 26 used Flavianus, but the idea has found few followers. 39 This is, in fact, not accepted anymore by Festy 1999, xii–xxxviii, and in fact not even by Schlumberger himself. Barnes 1976, 268 already argued against such a misrepresentation of the working method of the Epitome. 40 Rosen 1982, 31–5; Matthews 1989, 32; Barnes 1998, 184; Sabbah 1997, 26–31 and 2003, 54; Cameron 2012b: 395 is the latest date offered; G. Kelly (2008, 8) prefers an earlier one of 390. 35



Flavianus and the ‘Hartkequelle’ and the ‘Leoquelle’

43

to most scholars, by 395/6, and in a second version shortly after 404.41 A date for Flavianus’ history in 389–91 would conflict with most assessments of the working process of Ammianus, who is said to have finished either his entire history, or at least everything up to book 25 (Julian), by 390.42 If Flavianus wrote his history in 389–91, as is often stated, it cannot have been a source for these books, unless one wishes to accept that Ammianus reworked his narrative to include a few allusions to Flavianus.43 Indeed, this was the reason why Schlumberger changed his view and accepted that Flavianus had used Ammianus.44 In sum, the idea of a single source, the so-called Hartkequelle, underpinning the Epitome, Eunapius, and Ammianus is not the only possible interpretation of the parallels found in these works, and even if they do rely on a single source, there are no arguments to prove that this source was the history of Flavianus. The uncertainty surrounding the publication dates of Eunapius, the Epitome, and, to a lesser degree, Ammianus, allows for multiple reconstructions of the relationships between them. Second, Bruno Bleckmann has tested and refined a hypothesis earlier formulated by E. Patzig regarding the sources of Zonaras, a twelfth-­ century Byzantine historian.45 In Patzig’s account, Zonaras’ account of the years 222–395 depends on three lost sources, called the ‘Synopsisquelle’, the ‘Leoquelle’, and the ‘Zwillingsquelle’. These sources were identified on the basis of parallels with the chronicles of Symeon the Logothete (called Leo Grammaticus at that time, hence the name Leoquelle), George Cedrenus, and Theodore Scuthariotes. The Leoquelle, which is our focus here, contains parallels with the Excerpta Salmasiana II (which were mistakenly ascribed to John of Antioch46), running from Augustus to c. 455, and with the so-called Anonymous after Dio, a series of excerpts that cover the years 253–337. The latter tend to be ascribed to Peter the 41

Hartmann 2014, 56 offers an overview of the discussion. Barnes 1976, 266–8 and 2004 has argued for an early date for Eunapius (c. 383), suggesting that this would invalidate the Flavianus hypothesis. It indeed would render the generally preferred late date (389–91) for the history impossible; however, earlier dates have been suggested for Flavianus: see below. The parallels listed by Schlumberger only run until 371/2, which would be compatible with an early date for Eunapius. On Ammianus Marcellinus and Eunapius, see also Liebeschuetz 2003, 187–90, arguing that Ammianus used Eunapius. 42 Sabbah 2003, 53; G. Kelly 2008, 8. 43 Rosen 1982, 66–7 for a discussion. Bleckmann 1995, 95 argues for a later date of publication for Ammianus, that is, by 395: assuming that Flavianus published after 383, this leaves a decade for Ammianus to have used Flavianus. 44 Schlumberger 1985, 328. Flavianus is now the senatorial response to Ammianus. 45 Patzig 1894, 1896, and 1897; Bleckmann 1992, cf. 1991, 1995, 2009, 2010, and 2015. 46 Still in Roberto 2005: see the criticism of Bleckmann 2009 and 2010; Van Nuffelen 2012b.

44

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

Patrician, a sixth-century official under Justinian who published a history of the Empire.47 Bleckmann argues that Peter the Patrician is the origin of the Leoquelle. The fact that the material thus ascribed to Peter displays similarities with Ammianus Marcellinus indicates that he used a source addressing the fourth century, but, according to Bleckmann, on account of a number of divergences, it cannot have been Ammianus himself. He suggests that it was a Latin source and not Eunapius.48 This source is only discernible up to Jovian, but Bleckmann suggests that some traces may also be found later in the narrative.49 Identification of this Latin source with the Hartkequelle is based on a number of points of contact (in terms of shared information) with the Epitome and Ammianus. Yet, if the same sources seem to be involved, there are, as far as we can see, no significant points of contact that would connect the parallels that form the Hartkequelle with those that make up the Leoquelle.50 Moreover, the time spans of the parallels are different. The Latin source in the Leoquelle does not seem to run beyond 364, whereas in the Epitome the parallels with Eunapius extend to 371. If the Leoquelle and the Epitome relied on the same source as Zosimus, it would be strange that the parallels with Zosimus in the former run from 238 to 271, whilst in the latter they run from 283 to 371. Similarly, parallels with Ammianus in the Epitome can be seen until Gratian, in the Leoquelle only until Jovian. On this basis, the collapsing of the hypotheses of Schlumberger and Bleckmann into a single common source may be hazardous: we may well be dealing with different traditions. We wish to briefly review a proposal that has found little support among Flavianus scholars. S. Ratti has argued that a number of parallels in content between, on the one hand, the chronicle of Jerome, the Epitome de Caesaribus, and Ammianus Marcellinus, and, on the other, Zonaras for the years 357–64 reveal the use of Flavianus by Jerome.51 His analysis suggests that Zonaras changed sources after 364. Whilst Schlumberger argued that the Epitome used Jerome,52 Ratti inverts the relationship. This would necessitate a date before 379–80 for the history of Flavianus, and 47

Banchich 2015, with a good summary of the scholarship. Bleckmann 1995, 84. Bleckmann 1992, 395 and 1995, 86. 50 Note that the parallels between Zonaras and the other witnesses to the Leoquelle follow different time frames: the parallels with the Anonymus post Dionem run until 298, those with Zosimus from 238 until 271, those with Ammianus Marcellinus until the reign of Jovian (363–4), and those with the Excerpta Salmasiana II until 395. 51 Ratti 1997 and 2001. Banchich 1986 argues for use of Eunapius by Jerome, which is equally problematic. 52 Schlumberger 1974, 220. 48

49

Annales?

45

Ratti, in fact, argues for an even earlier date, that is, before 370. For this he relies on an argument by F. Paschoud, who noticed a parallel in content between Festus, Eutropius, Zosimus, and Ammianus.53 As the first two published their works around 370, the history of Flavianus must predate 370, and Ratti therefore suggests that a first edition of Flavianus was published before 364. There is an obvious clash between this proposal and the ­analyses of Schlumberger and Bleckmann, who posit a common source running until 383. The solution of a second edition for a work reconstructed through Quellenforschung is a weak one. Ratti’s proposal has therefore not found much support.54 It is not our intention here to question the possibility that the results of the Quellenforschung are correct, nor do we wish to enter into this debate. Yet, taking the results as they present themselves suggests that lumping the results of Schlumberger together with those of Bleckmann is not as obvious as it is usually presented. In sum, then, it is methodologically unwarranted to ascribe the Hartkeand Leoquelle to Flavianus, all the more so given the fact that these terms cover rather different traditions.

Annales? T1: CIL 6.1783 ll. 19–21 = ILS 2948 = Hedrick 2000, 3 (tr. Hedrick 2000, 2, modified) cuius in eum effusa benevolentia et usq(ue) ad an/nalium quos consecrari sibi a quaestore et praefecto suo voluit provecta / excitavit livorem inproborum

It was the kindness that [the emperor] showered upon him55 and tendered even to his annals, which he wanted his quaestor and prefect to dedicate to him, a fact that excited the jealousy of scoundrels.56 53

Paschoud 1975a, 188–201; cf. 2006. Cf. Festy 1999, xix; Cecconi 2002, 73–4; Jeanjean and Lançon 2004, 49–50. Ratti has also picked up an idea circulated by Callu 1985, that Symmachus the Younger (FHistLA 14) had used the history of Flavianus to write his own work. Ratti suggests that therefore Flavianus’ history also occupied seven books (cf. Zecchini 2009, 92). There is no proof for any of these claims. 55 That is, Flavianus. 56 Improbi is a traditional term for people acting against imperial intentions: Symmachus, Relatio 3.1–2. 54

46

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus Commentary

In 431, a statue of Nicomachus Flavianus was erected in the Forum of Trajan, by Appius Nicomachus Dexter, his grandson, at the behest of the senate, in honour of Nicomachus Flavianus the younger, the son of the person depicted.57 The inscription consists of a letter of Theodosius II and Valentinian III to the senate formally rehabilitating Flavianus (senior), who had suffered damnatio memoriae after his suicide in 394. The precise reasons for this rehabilitation remain obscure; it is usually assumed that the court sought the support of certain senatorial groups which were aligned with the Nicomachi.58 The imperial letter makes it clear that the rehabilitation happened at the demand of Flavianus’ son, Nicomachus Flavianus the Younger.59 The letter shifts blame for the damnatio away from Theodosius I to unnamed bad advisers,60 quite naturally so because the letter is written by (or at least in the name of ) Theodosius’ descendants. The improbi are depicted as having been jealous of the imperial benevolence and, in particular, Theodosius’ interest in Flavianus’ history. In this way, the inscription highlights Flavianus’ literary credentials over his political career, as does T3. Indeed, as noted by C. Hedrick, the monument stood in the Forum of Trajan, where statues of cultural personalities tended to be erected.61 The inscription and the location of the monument, then, emphasize Flavianus’ literary credentials at the expense of his political activities. This conveniently directs attention away from the political reasons for his damnatio. We are thus dealing with a skewed representation that seeks to respect the reputation of the imperial house and that of Flavianus. This has consequences for what we can learn from this testimony. First, the letter states that Theodosius I wanted his quaestor and prefect to dedicate his history to him.62 This has been interpreted as indicating that Flavianus was quaestor and prefect when he dedicated his history to Theodosius, which in turn would give us an approximate date for the history. As a consequence, great importance has been attributed to establishing the exact dates of Flavianus’ tenure in these offices. Two possibilities present themselves: 382/3 for the quaestorship and 383 for the prefecture, 57

LSA 1247. On the inscription, see Grünewald 1992; Hedrick 2000; Baldini 2009; Girotti 2015. Oost 1968, 231; Hedrick 2000, 224. ILS 2948, l. 33. 60 Hedrick 2000, 220–2. 61 Hedrick 2000, 234. 62 Birley 2003, 129 translates as follows: ‘[Flavianus] dedicated his Annales to Theodosius, whose quaestor and prefect he was, at the emperor’s wish.’ 58

59

Annales?

47

or 388/9 for the quaestorship and 389/90 for the prefecture. The later date now seems to have the most adherents.63 Yet the statement is not so unequivocal as to allow us to draw certain conclusions about the date of the history.64 Flavianus was never quaestor and prefect at the same time: the two offices tended to be successive. Thus the inscription does not offer us an exact statement of Flavianus’ position at the time of writing,65 but rather singles out the most important offices he held under Theodosius I. (Unsurprisingly, the inscription never mentions the consulship of 394, when he was appointed by the usurper Eugenius.) The phrase quaestor et praefectus suus may also be used merely as a general description of Flavianus, without offering any clue for dating the work. It is also unclear if the history was ever dedicated to Theodosius I: quos consecrari sibi a quaestore et praefecto suo voluit expresses an intention, not a result. Just two lines earlier, the letter expresses another wish that did not come true: eum quem vivere nobis servarique vobis (...) optavit (‘whom he [Theodosius I] desired to survive for us and be spared for you’). It is quite safe to attribute good intentions to dead people. The imperial letter undoubtedly picks up the arguments proposed by the descendants of Flavianus for his rehabilitation. The sentence ascribes only an intention to Theodosius, in order to highlight imperial appreciation for the history of Flavianus. As T2 shows, the family thought highly of the historiographical activity of Flavianus: indeed, the work is not attested outside documents produced by family members (T2–4).66 Seen in this light, T1 tendentiously suggests a strong link between Theodosius and Flavianus in order to blame the latter’s downfall on a stock character of late antique politics, the bad courtier. The reference to quaestorship and prefecture could then equally be a way to emphasize the close bond between Flavianus and Theodosius, as Flavianus would have been close to the court in both roles. In this interpretation, T1 offers us little reliable information. In favour of a dedication to Theodosius I, one could argue that the claim that the emperor wanted to have the history dedicated to him is a very

63

Seeck 1883, cxvi and 1919, 116 and 261; Hartke 1940; Syme 1968, 110; Callu 1974; O’Donnell 1978; Vera 1983; Honoré 1989 and 1998, 58–70; Errington 1992; Matthews 1975, 231; 1989, 18–25; and 1997; Hedrick 2000, 20–2; Paschoud 2001, xv and 2012, 371; Cecconi 2002, 168–9 and 2013, 161; Birley 2003, 130; Barnes 2004, 123; Cameron 2011, 631–2. 64 Schlumberger 1985, 321 (389–91); Festy 1995 (390–1); Bleckmann 1997, 96 (389–91); Cameron 2011, 632 (shortly after 390). 65 Bleckmann 1995, 95 suggests that Flavianus may have only been quaestor when he wrote the work. 66 Girotti 2015 takes the argument too far by suggesting that Flavianus may not have written a history.

48

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

strong one to make and one that would be unlikely to be unsupported by an actual dedication. Even if one follows this line of argument, it remains the case that there is no firm reason to link the writing of the work to the period when Flavianus was prefect or quaestor and that the representation made in the inscription is skewed to give a positive impression of him. Whether one thinks that the work was dedicated to Theodosius I or not, the passage implies that the history was a fairly innocent work.67 Given Theodosius’ own self-positioning as a Christian, indeed a Nicene, emperor, if he wanted Flavianus’ work to be dedicated to him, it can hardly have been militantly anti-Christian. In turn, if the history was never dedicated to Theodosius, the fact that the history served to deflect attention away from Flavianus’ treason suggests the same conclusion. The war against Eugenius had been styled by Theodosius I as a struggle between virtuous Christianity and evil paganism and was remembered in that way by later sources.68 It would have been much harder to assign a rehabilitating role to a history that could be easily catalogued as anti-Christian: any hostile senator able to look up the history and present it to Valentinian III would have a powerful argument against the Nicomachi – especially as the imperial letter emphasizes the filial piety of Valentinian and Theodosius II towards their grandfather.69 Second, this testimony describes the history as annalium [libros], ‘[books] of annals’. Annales is often taken to be a title,70 but one has to be cautious. Late antique erudite sources make a distinction between annales and historia, whereby the former indicates histories of the distant past and the latter histories of contemporary events.71 Yet this is a scholarly distinction, prompted by the need to distinguish between two similar terms, and one that probably goes back to Republican era debates: it does not find confirmation in actual usage, where annales and historia are 67

Cf. Grünewald 1992, 472, who uses the argument to suggest that Flavianus wrote about the Republic, a safe period. The work is usually assumed to be strongly anti-Christian (Schlumberger 1985, 328), but there is little evidence to support that idea. Zecchini 1993, 55 justifies it by reference to the character of the author. 68 Cameron 2011, 93–131, with further references. 69 ILS 2948, ll. 15 and 21. 70 Often implicitly, but explicitly so by Zecchini 1993, 52, who sees it as referring to traditional historiography, such as Tacitus and the Annales pontificium. One should note that Tacitus conforms somewhat to the erudite distinction between annales and historia: his Annales treat the period before that discussed in the Historiae. See also Cecconi 2013, 151. See the caution urged by Schlumberger 1974, 244; Cameron 2011, 631; Prchlík 2012, 50. 71 Servius, On Aeneid 1.373; Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 1.41 and 1.44. Cf. Aulus Gellius, Attic nights 5.18. Compare Symmachus, Panegyric for Valentinian 2.24 (prisca monumenta/annales) and Ennodius, Panegyric 2.13 (historiae and annales as a hendiadys for all works of history); Claudian, Panegyric for the fourth consulate of Honorius 311, where annales means ancient history.

Annales?

49

used ­indiscriminately.72 There is no other late antique history that carries the title Annales, rendering it unlikely that it is actually a title. If annales were the title, it becomes somewhat more likely that the work dealt with the distant past and not with contemporary events: a title is a more conscious use of a term, rendering it more likely that it would pick up erudite usage. Indeed, by using annales as a title, Flavianus would have clearly distinguished his work from other late antique, probably in order to signal a different type of content. Needless to say, if this were true, the hypothetical identification of Flavianus’ history with the so-called Hartke- and Leoquelle cannot hold. T2: CIL 6.1782 = ILS 2947 = Hedrick 2000, 13 (tr. Hedrick (2000), 13 modified) Virio Nicomacho Flaviano v(iro) c(larissimo) / quaest(ori) praet(ori) pontif(ici) maiori / consulari Siciliae / vicario Africae / quaestori intra palatium / praef(ecto) praet(orio) iterum co(n)s(uli) ord(inario) / historico disertissimo / Q(uintus) Fab(ius) Memmius Symmachus v(ir) c(larissimus) / prosocero optimo

To Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, vir clarissimus, quaestor, praetor, pontifex maior, consularis of Sicily, vicar of Africa, quaestor at the imperial palace, praetorian prefect twice, ordinary consul,73 most eloquent historian. Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus,74 vir clarissimus, (erected this statue) for his excellent grandfather-in-law. Commentary This statue base was found on the Caelian Hill and was dedicated by Q. Fabius Memmius Symmachus, the son of Q. Aurelius Symmachus, the orator and letter-writer.75 It is to be dated between 401 and 431, with 72

Verbrugghe 1989; Scholz 1994; Burgess and Kulikowski 2013b; Croke 2001b, 293–8, who suggests incorrectly that annales is quite rare as a term; Baldini 2005. 73 For Flavianus’ career, see PLRE I, 347–9 (15), and the works cited in nn. 58 and 63: consularis of Sicily in 364/5, vicar of Africa in 377, quaestor in 389/90, prefect in 390–2 (for the earlier option of 383–4, see below n. 61) and again in 393–4 under the usurper Eugenius, consul in 394, also appointed by Eugenius. 74 Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus, PLRE II, 1046–7 (10), the son of the famous orator, who married a granddaughter of Nicomachus Flavianus. 75 LSA 271.

50

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

Hedrick 2000, 15 preferring the earliest possible date. He suggests that the occasion may have been the marriage of Memmius to the granddaughter of Flavianus (401), and that he dedicated on this occasion a similar statue to his father (CIL 6.1699 + 39103 = ILS 2946).76 As the orator Symmachus had a house on the Caelian Hill, the statues may well have been put up there.77 This private setting may explain the references to the consulate and the prefecture under the usurper Eugenius, which are absent in ILS 2948 (from which T1 stems), which was a public document quoting an imperial letter. The inscription runs parallel to that dedicated to the orator Symmachus, who is called orator disertissimus after the list of his offices. If Memmius, as some scholars maintain,78 edited (several books of ) the letters of his father, then his emphasis on the literary qualities of his ancestors is unsurprising. It also gives the praise for Flavianus a somewhat topical value. It concurs with T1 in that the family of Flavianus remembered his history as his main literary achievement.

Life of Apollonius of Tyana (spurium) T3: Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 8.3.1 (Anderson 1965, 404–6) Apollonii Pythagorici vitam, non ut Nicomachus senior e Philostrati sed ut Tascius Victorianus e Nicomachi schedio exscripsit, quia iusseras, misi; quam, dum parere festino, celeriter eiecit in tumultuarium exemplar turbida et praeceps et opica79 translatio.

The life of Apollonius the Pythagorean80 I have sent you, because you ordered me to do so, not as Nicomachus the Elder transcribed it from the 76

Grünewald 1992, 467. Symmachus, Letter 3.12, 3.88, and 7.18–19: cf. Hedrick 2000, 14. 78 For an overview of the debate, on which scholars are divided, see Sogno 2017, 179–82. 79 opica Anderson. 80 In Late Antiquity, Apollonius of Tyana developed into a figure of identification for pagans. The philosopher Hierocles styled him as a counter-image to Christ (cf. Eusebius, Against Hierocles). In the Historia Augusta, often understood as an anti-Christian work, Apollonius makes several appearances (Life of Alexander Severus 29.2, Life of Aurelianus 24.2–9) as he does in the Lives of the Sophists by Eunapius, explicitly hostile to Christianity (2.1.4, 23.1.8). For epigraphic evidence for the popularity of Apollonius, see an epigram epigraphically preserved in Mopsuestia (I.Cilicie 88) and a statue in Aphrodisias (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 40.950, with Smith 1990). Yet here we have two Christians interested in the Life of Apollonius written by the third-century author Philostratus. 77



Life of Apollonius of Tyana (spurium)

51

manuscript of Philostratus81 but as Tascius Victorianus82 did from that of Nicomachus. Whilst I hastened to obey, a disordered and hasty and barbaric83 transcription quickly ended up in a confused copy. Commentary The passage, taken from a letter from Sidonius Apollinaris to Leo in 476/7,84 has been interpreted in three ways. First, the most straightforward interpretation is that Nicomachus simply edited the Greek version of Philostratus,85 the scenario being that Sidonius sent a copy of Victorianus’ edition of Flavianus’ edition of Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius. As the non ut … sed ut construction indicates, Sidonius was aware that he was using a copy that was made from a copy of Flavianus. This reading allows exscribere to have its usual meaning ‘to copy’. Translatio in this case then has the meaning of ‘transposition’, ‘copy’86 and is used here as a virtual synonym for exemplar. A second interpretation understands that Sidonius translated the Life of Apollonius into Latin, on the grounds that translatio must mean translation.87 This interpretation leads to an incongruence in the interpretation of the passage. The first sentence states that Sidonius sent the life written by Philostratus to Leo at his command (quia iusseras) and that he did this in the same way as Victorianus exscribit from the copy of Flavianus. As noted, in its normal meaning exscribere means ‘to copy’: thus the first sentence implies that Leo demanded a Greek version of the text. If we take translatio to mean ‘translation’, the second sentence would then mean that Sidonius translated the work. Yet the second sentence also states explicitly that Sidonius obeyed the command of Leo (dum parere festino), and this would imply that Leo had demanded a translation. Thus we end up 81

Flavius Philostratus, c. 170–247, sophist. His Life of Apollonius contained eight books. Tascius Victorianus: PLRE II, 1160–1 (2). He was a vir consularis, but is only attested in relation to his editorial activity. Besides the Life of Apollonius, he also edited the first ten books of Livy. 83 For this meaning of opicus, see the TLL s.v. 84 Leo, a vir spectabilis connected to the Visigoths: PLRE II, 662–3 (5). 85 Cf. TLL s.v. exscribo 2a: Anderson 1965, 403; Cameron 2011, 546–54 (who suggests that Flavianus only owned a copy, but exscribere seems to have a more precise meaning than that); Savino 2017, 36. Apparently, this was already the view of J. Sirmond: Sirmond 1696, 1053, referenced by Prchlík 2007, 200, who offers an extensive status quaestionis. Paschoud 2012, 367–9 criticizes Cameron’s interpretation, but fails to deal with the linguistic issues that are at the core of the question. 86 Cf. Blaise s.v. Schwartz 1978, 192–3 shows that Sidonius always uses transferre in the sense of ‘to transcribe’. The one exception (Letter 2.9.5) is caused by an imitation of Jerome (Preface to the Commentary on the Pentateuch (PL 28.151A)). 87 Pricoco 1965; Loyen 1970, 196 n. 5 (who entertains the possibility that both Flavianus and Sidonius translated the Life). For criticism, see Pecere 1986, 60–1; Prchlík 2007. 82

52

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

with a contradiction between the interpretation of the first and that of the second sentence. We cannot solve the problem by taking exscribere to mean ‘to translate’, for then we jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. Indeed, the non ut … sed ut clause would then mean that Sidonius’ version was done not in imitation of Flavianus translating Philostratus but of Victorianus translating Flavianus’ version – turning Victorianus absurdly into a translator from Latin into Greek. And if Sidonius knew of a Latin translation, why would he have made a new one and not tried to find the one that already existed? This leaves us with a simple solution: we know that translatio need not mean ‘translation’, especially in this context where a text was copied and thus transferred into a new codex. Given Leo’s learning, there is no reason to suppose he would not have been able to read Greek. Third, it has been argued that Sidonius sent a copy of Victorianus’ edition of a translation made by Flavianus. The idea has many followers, especially since the Life of Apollonius was often used in an anti-pagan context and thus fits the interpretation of Flavianus as an anti-Christian author.88 Taking it further, R. Syme suggests that the reference in Historia Augusta, Life of Aurelianus 27.6 to a translator called Nicomachus is an allusion to Nicomachus Flavianus, arguing that this person is otherwise unattested and that the life mentions Apollonius of Tyana just a few chapters earlier (Life of Aurelianus 24.2–9).89 However popular, this interpretation does violence to the Latin. It requires us to take exscribere to mean ‘to translate’ when applied to Nicomachus and ‘to copy’ when applied to Victorianus.90 Given that the verb is only used once in the sentence, this would be an incongruous interpretation of the passage.

88

Seeck 1909, 2508; Syme 1968, 111; Schwartz 1978, 192; Haveling 1990, 190; Bleckmann 1992, 400 n. 21; Horsfall 1993, 371–2; Zecchini 1993, 55; Hedrick 2000, 179–80. Prchlík 2007, 201 n. 16 offers a full list of scholars accepting this view. 89 Syme 1968, 111. Cf. Paschoud 2012, 368. 90 Anderson 1965, 403. Cf. Pricoco 1965; Schlumberger 1985, 328. Contrary to what is stated by Prchlík 2007, 202 and Paschoud 2012, 367, Sidonius does not use exscribere in the sense of ‘translate’ in Letter 2.9.5 (… quamquam sic esset ad verbum sententiamque translatus ut nec Apuleius Phaedonem sic Platonis neque Tullius Ctesiphontem sic Demosthenis in usum regulamque Romani sermonis exscripserint: ‘… yet his works had been translated into Latin with such faithfulness to the letter and the spirit that Apuleius could not be said to have turned Plato’s Phaedo or Tully Demosthenes’ Ctesiphon into such a perfect expression of the theory and the usage of Latin speech’, tr. Anderson). The extensive construction exscribere in usum regulamque Romani sermonis (‘to copy for use in and according to the rules of the Roman language’) implies that exscribere is here used to vary transferre and that its meaning would be unclear if it were not further specified. Long 2006, 229 suggests that Flavianus composed his own Life of Apollonius, an idea that has no basis in the passage of Sidonius.



On the doctrine of the philosophers (spurium)

53

In sum, the passage can only be interpreted in one sense: Sidonius sent Leo a transcription of the Greek Life of Apollonius, based on the manuscript as corrected first by Nicomachus Flavianus and subsequently by Victorianus.

On the doctrine of the philosophers (spurium) For sake of completeness, we include fragments of a probably medieval work which some scholars have incorrectly attributed to Nicomachus Flavianus. In the twelfth century, John of Salisbury, in his Polycraticus, repeatedly mentions a Flavianus. From these references, scholars have concluded that Nicomachus Flavianus authored a work On the doctrine of the philosophers. Caution is warranted for two reasons. First, John of Salisbury never says that Flavianus authored On the doctrine of the philosophers: he merely states that Flavianus appears in that work. And second, it is by no means certain that John is talking about Nicomachus Flavianus. If, and only if, it is Nicomachus Flavianus who was adduced as a witness in On the doctrine of the philosophers, then he must have written something on philosophy, as John cites him as a witness concerning anecdotes about Plato and Socrates. We shall first discuss these points in more detail, and then limit ourselves to a brief commentary following the fragments. In his Polycraticus, John of Salisbury refers to a work entitled De dogmate (or vestigiis) philosophorum three times. In two of those instances, the book is cited anonymously. In the third instance, he quotes a statement of Flavianus appearing in the book. In contrast to what has been suggested,91 however, it is unlikely that the Flavianus cited is the author of the work. Indeed, as F3 signals, through its mention of Flavianus alongside Quintilian and Valerius Maximus, On the doctrines of the philosophers probably quoted a number of authorities, one of which was a certain Flavianus. We are, then, dealing with an anonymous work that collected ancient anecdotes. The next question concerns the identity of the Flavianus quoted in On the doctrines of the philosophers. Many scholars have taken this to be Nicomachus Flavianus.92 In favour of this attribution one can adduce that the passages rely on classical sources (except F3–4, which seem unattested 91

Pace Prchlík 2012, 51. Schaarschmidt 1862, 103–6; Wytzes 1977, 154; Zecchini 1993, 55; Cameron 2011, 387 and 544–6; Prchlík 2012, 51; Ratti 2012, 129–48.

92

54

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

elsewhere, but may be biographical fictions based on Plato’s Republic) and that such an interest would not be out of step with the literary interests of Flavianus. It is usually said that the anecdotes betray a philosophical interest,93 but there is little philosophy in them. In at least one case the source is Valerius Maximus (F3), a collection of exempla. Yet one has to be sceptical: though it is possible that this is Flavianus, it is not likely that he is mentioned here. First of all, it would be remarkable if a writer working in Canterbury around 1159 had access to a lost work by Flavianus. And second, the author is only designated by the name Flavianus, without further specifics. Medievalists have argued that ‘Flavianus’ is more plausibly understood as a pseudo-ancient name attributed to a collection of moralizing anecdotes used by John of Salisbury.94 The name Flavianus occurred regularly in the Middle Ages, for it was a name under which the grammarian Charisius was mistakenly quoted, turning Fl(avius) Sosipater Charisius (fourth century) into Flavianus.95 If one wishes to attribute the work to a historical Flavianus, he is the more likely candidate. A collection of anecdotes would be a fitting work for a grammarian or teacher of rhetoric. In the unlikely case that the Flavianus mentioned by John of Salisbury is Nicomachus Flavianus, then what would these fragments tell us about him? As mentioned above, the fragments do not warrant the conclusion that Flavianus authored a work On the doctrine of the philosophers. But they do suggest that a Flavianus wrote a doxographic work or a collection of anecdotes. Indeed, F1 and F4 relate to Plato, and F3 to Socrates. F2 adds a moralistic spin to a famous tale from Petronius. On the basis of these facts, S. Ratti calls Flavianus a Neoplatonic philosopher,96 but that is going too far: the work does not betray any philosophical reflection, and Platonism was the lingua franca of the age. On the contrary, the very idea of a ­doxography rather discourages any attribution of the work to Nicomachus Flavianus: as extant doxographic works are not ­written by Roman s­enators97 and as the literary activity one sees in the circle of Symmachus is quite different, a doxographic work by Nicomachus Flavianus would be rather unique and beneath his social status.98 Given the highly doubtful nature of the material, we will limit ourselves to a brief commentary. 93

E.g. Cameron 2011, 545; Ratti 2012, 129–48. Moos 1988, 222 n. 509, with reference to Lehmann 1927, 28; Kerner 1977, 105. Kaster 1988, 408, with further references. 96 Ratti 2012, 145–8. Cf. Cameron 2011, 545. 97 See Runia 1997. 98 See introduction, pp. 18–20. For sketches of this activity, see Matthews 1975, 256; Cameron 2011, 353–98. 94 95



On the doctrine of the philosophers (spurium)

55

F1: John of Salisbury, Polycraticus 2.26 (Keats-Rohan 1993, 145 ll. 51–67) Quis enim adeo sapiens est ut omnibus cuiusvis imperiti, nedum tuis, quaestionibus satisfaciat? Totius denique veteris philosophiae princeps Plato levem, ut fertur, quod tamen de Homero verius diceretur, nescio quam nautarum quaestionem explicare non potuit. Unde cum ab eisdem impudentius et protractius derideretur, ut erat vir verecundi ingenii, quasi toxicato confusionis iaculo perfossus ad mortem, spiritum novissimum exhalavit. Puduerat enim quod quasi totius Academiae improperio exprobraverant principem philosophorum Graeciae etiam minima ignorare. Hoc autem asserit Flavianus in libro qui De vestigiis philosophorum inscribitur Xenophontinos faciente invidia adversus Platonis gloriam impudenter finxisse, licet quam plurimi eum ob sacramentum numeri asserant ultro animam posuisse, illo aetatis suae anno expleto quam novenarius in se ipsum ductus effecerat, eo quod exinde non accedit humanitati nisi labor et dolor.

For who is so wise that he can provide a satisfactory answer to all the questions you might imagine from any ignoramus, let alone your own? After all, Plato (so they say, but it would be said more truthfully of Homer), the pinnacle of the whole of ancient philosophy, was unable to explain I do not know what simple question from some sailors. When, as a result, he was irreverently and for rather too long derided by those same sailors, he – as he was a man of a nature sensitive to shame – as if mortally pierced by the toxic javelin of confusion, breathed his last. For he felt ashamed that they had indecently proven that the pinnacle of Greek philosophers and of the whole Academy was ignorant of even the smallest things. In a book entitled On the traces of the philosophers, Flavianus claims that the followers of Xenophon, spurred by envy of Plato’s fame, invented this impudently, although many people, on the basis of a mysterious number, claim that he passed away later, when he had completed that year of his life when the number nine multiplied by itself was completed,99 and after which human beings get nothing but effort and pain.

99

Plato was said to have died at the age of 81, a number that is divine: Seneca, Letter 58.31; Censorinus, The birthday book 14.12 and 15.1: Riginos 1976, 25–7. The animosity between the followers of Plato and those of Xenophon is attested in Aulus Gellius, Attic nights 14.3; Athenaeus, Deiphnosophists 11.504E–505B: cf. Riginos 1976, 108–10 for further sources.

56

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus Commentary

The anecdote is usually linked to Homer,100 as is also indicated in this passage, but it is here transferred to Plato. John Chrysostom seems to have known this version, attesting its (late) antique origin.101 The same anecdote about Plato, without reference to Flavianus, recurs in Polycraticus 7.5, where it is preceded by a reference to an anonymous work ‘On [Plato’s] teachings’: Si liber qui De dogmate eius est contempnitur, in laudem eius Origenes, Ieronimus, Augustinus, omnium philosophorum adtestationibus freti, sufficiunt.102 The identity of both works, De vestigiis philosophorum (2.26) and De dogmate philosophorum (7.5), is confirmed a few lines after that citation: Sunt eius auctore Seneca egregia multa, quae passim possunt apud philosophos inveniri et pro parte expressa sunt et congesta in libro qui De vestigiis, siue De dogmate philosophorum inscribitur.103 On the authority of Seneca, many outstanding things of his [sc. Plato’s] can be found here and there in philosophers, and are expressed on his behalf and brought together in a book entitled On the traces, or, On the dogmas of the philosophers.

John of Salisbury thus refers to the book On the doctrine of the philosophers three times, but only once (F1) is the name Flavianus mentioned in relation to it. Far from claiming that Flavianus authored the book, F1 merely states that Flavianus makes a statement in it. This suggests that John of Salisbury used an anonymous compilation in which anecdotes were collected. F3 will offer further confirmation of this. F2: John of Salisbury, Polycraticus 8.11 (Webb 1965, II, 304.17) Tu historiam aut fabulam quod iis verbis refert Petronius pro libitu appellabis; ita tamen ex facto accidisse Effesi et Flavianus auctor est, mulierem que tradit impietatis suae et sceleris parricidalis et adulterii luisse penas.

You will call, as you wish, a history or a story that which Petronius tells with these words. But Flavianus too testifies that this really happened in 100

Heraclitus F56; Pseudo-Plutarch, Life of Homer 55a; Pseudo-Herodotus, Life of Homer 35. John Chrysostom, On the first letter to the Corinthians 4 (PG 61.33), with Riginos 1976, 197. ‘If the book On his teachings is spurned, Origen, Jerome, Augustine, building on the testimonies of all the philosophers, suffice for his praise.’ Cf. also Webb 1965, II, 110.28. 103 John of Salisbury, Polycraticus 8.11 (Webb 1965, II, 294.14). 101

102



On the doctrine of the philosophers (spurium)

57

Ephesus, recounting that a woman paid the price for her impiety and the crime of murder and adultery. Commentary The fragment is preceded by the story of the soldier and the widow from Petronius (Satyricon 111–12). Flavianus seems to have added a moralizing ending104 that, in Petronius, is only wished for by one of the people present. F3: John of Salisbury, Polycraticus 8.12 (Webb 1965, II, 309.29; tr. Nederman 1990, 183, modified) Non aliquid adversus cantores aut musicos struo, cum (teste Quintiliano, Valerio, Flaviano, et aliis multis) Socrates etiam in senectute didicerit musicam credens, si musica deforet, sibi cumulum sapientiae defuturum.

In any case, I do not contrive anything against singers or musicians, since (as witnessed by Quintilian, Valerius,105 Flavianus, and many others) even Socrates learned music in old age, believing that he would deny himself the pinnacle of wisdom if music were absent. Commentary Quintilian records that Socrates learned to play the lyre in old age, as does Valerius Maximus.106 On the role of music in the ideal state, see Plato, Republic 3.398c–399e: this may be the distant origin of the anecdote. The multiplication of authors’ names supports our conclusion that the source of these anecdotes was an anonymous work that cited many authors, including a Flavianus. F4: John of Salisbury, Polycraticus 8.12 (Webb 1965, II, 314.31; tr. Nederman 1990, 186, modified) 104

Cameron 2011, 545 attributes the moralizing to John of Salisbury. Valerius Maximus, often referred to by John of Salisbury (Polycraticus 5.7, 7.5–6, 8.2, 8.6, 8.8–9, 8.12, 8.14–15, and 8.20). The number of such references in book 8, from which most of the references to Flavianus also stem, suggests that the Liber de dogmate philosophorum was a major source for that book. 106 Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory 1.10.13; Valerius Maximus, Memorable deeds and sayings 8.7.8. 105

58

Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

Quid ergo viro cum speculo, nisi in eo casu quo illud Platonem gestasse testis est Flavianus, ut videret in eo quantum peregrinatio, studii fervor, acumen temporis, processus etatis de naturali statu mutasset faciei indicio, quae bona et mala fidelissime protestatur?

What therefore, does a man need a mirror for, except for that reason for which Flavianus reported that Plato had carried one, in order that in it he might see by the evidence of his face, which bears most faithful witness to good and evil, how its natural appearance had changed with the amount of travel, the enthusiasm for study, the ravages of time, and the advance of age? Commentary This anecdote is unique, but it may be inspired by the mirror analogy in Plato, Republic 10.596d–e.107 107

Riginos 1976, 159.

4

Nummius Aemilianus Dexter All-encompassing history

Of Spanish stock, Dexter was the son of Pacianus, bishop of Barcelona, but he pursued a secular career, culminating in a stint as praefectus praetorio Italiae in 395.1 His Christian credentials, highlighted by Jerome, were probably instrumental in this appointment: the revolt of Eugenius, perceived as favouring paganism, had just been suppressed, and the openly pagan prefect, Nicomachus Flavianus, had committed suicide in 394. Dexter is probably best known as the dedicatee of Jerome’s On illustrious men (392/3).2 In the preface to that work, Jerome states that Dexter urged him to provide a Christian equivalent to the survey of famous Latin authors by Suetonius. To display his own learning, Jerome lists a host of earlier Greek and Latin pagan authors who did the same.3 Dexter, for his part, appears as someone intent on giving Latin-speaking Christians a Christian past, a task for which Jerome, who had published his Chronicle twelve years earlier, was eminently suited. Given Dexter’s apparent interest in history, he may have had knowledge of Jerome’s Chronicle, and it may well have been this knowledge that pushed him to seek contact with Jerome. While there is no evidence for any acquaintance between the two men preceding Jerome’s On illustrious men, the only later reference to Dexter made by Jerome also mentions him as the dedicatee of On illustrious men.4 In Jerome’s writings, then, contact between both men is

1

PLRE I, 251 (3). On this work, see J. N. D. Kelly 1975, 174–7, expressing the traditional negative judgement. An overview of scholarship is offered by Rebenich 1992, 198 n. 343. For a positive interpretation of the work as a handbook for Christian debate, see Whiting 2015. Regarding its date, see the overview of the discussion by Kelly 1975, 174 and Rebenich 2002, 97. 3 Cf. Ceresa-Gastaldo 1995. 4 Jerome, Apology against Rufinus 2.23 (dated to 395). 2

59

60

Nummius Aemilianus Dexter

always related to that work, and it is therefore doubtful that the two men were close or in frequent contact.5 The nature of Dexter’s ‘universal history’ is unclear, but if we take Jerome’s vocabulary as a guide, it was most likely a translation of the first part of Eusebius’ Chronicle, the ἐπιτομὴ παντοδαπῆς ἱστορίας Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ βαρβάρων. In that case, it would have consisted of excerpts from earlier historians and lists of rulers and, thus, would have been a chronography.

Omnimoda historia? T: Jerome, On illustrious men 132 (ed. Richardson 1896, 55.2–3; cf. PL 23.715A) Dexter, Paciani, de quo supra dixi filius, clarus ad6 saeculum et Christi fidei deditus, fertur ad me omnimodam historiam texuisse, quam necdum legi.

Dexter, the son of Pacianus, whom I mentioned earlier, famous in the world and devoted to the faith in Christ, has, I am told, composed an all-encompassing history, which I have not yet read. Commentary First, clarus ad saeculum is usually translated as ‘distinguished in his generation’7 or ‘a man of social distinction’.8 But while praise of Dexter can be expected, this translation disregards the chiastic construction clarus ad saeculum et Christi fidei deditus: Dexter is renowned in secular life and, yet, devoted to faith in Christ. Saeculum in the sense of ‘this-worldly’ and 5

Matthews 1975, 133 proposes a visit of Dexter to Bethlehem. Williams 2006, 43 suggests that it is possible that they may have met in Constantinople in the 380s, but there is no evidence for this. On p. 247 she is more certain (‘There he must have met …’). Yet see J. M. D. Kelly 1975, 175, noting that we know nothing about Jerome’s contacts with Dexter. Rebenich 1992, 214 correctly remarks that there must have been at least an epistolary exchange. Ceresa-Gastaldo 1988, 340 wrongly states that Dexter dedicated his Omnimoda historia to Jerome. 6 PL 23.715A reads apud saeculum, a variant reading not recorded in the apparatus of Richardson 1896, nor in Ceresa-Gastaldo 1988. 7 Schaff and Wace 1979, 384. 8 Halton 1999, 165, which is a calque of Ceresa-Gastaldo 1988, 229: ‘distinto per condizione sociale’.



Omnimoda historia?

61

profane is rooted in biblical idiom, and its opposition to faith in God and Christ is common, and also used by Jerome.9 The translation offered in passing by Rebenich 2002, 94 (‘distinguished in secular life’) does get the right meaning, but we have preferred the somewhat more literal ‘famous in the world’. By constructing this, as it were, Janus-like portrait of Dexter, famous in secular life yet a pious Christian, Jerome takes up a theme already broached in the preface of On illustrious men, where Dexter, asking for a Christian equivalent of Suetonius, also appears as someone rooted in both secular learning and Christianity. Second, the history written by Dexter is called omnimoda historia. This is always translated as ‘universal history’,10 but omnimodus can mean either ‘universal’ (qua coverage) or ‘varied’ (qua content and form). Titles of this type are known from Greek literature, like the poikil ē historia of Aelian and the pantodapē historia of Favorinus. There they indicate the varied nature of the subject.11 The παντοδαπὴ ἱστορία of Favorinus (second ­century) is once translated as omnigena historia by Julius Valerius, the fourth-­ century author of a Latin Alexander Romance (Favorinus F61 Amato = F24 Mensching). Omnimoda historia for universal history is unknown in Latin. On the basis of this evidence, the translation ‘universal history’, with the suggestion that Dexter covered the whole of human history in a systematic narrative, would seem to be a misleading translation. There is, however, another context in which to understand the title. Jerome’s On illustrious men offers, in fact, the only occurrences of omnimoda historia in Latin.12 Yet there it is used three times. In the two other instances, it translates one and the same Greek phrase. First, in On illustrious men 81, the list of works of Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicorum canonum omnimoda historia et eorum ἐπιτομή is a somewhat garbled translation of the Greek title of Eusebius’ chronicle (χρονικοὶ κανόνες καὶ ἐπιτομὴ παντοδαπῆς ἱστορίας Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ βαρβάρων).13 Whereas in Greek the χρονικοὶ κανόνες and the ἐπιτομὴ παντοδαπῆς ἱστορίας indicate the two parts of the work, Jerome has transferred παντοδαπὴ ἱστορία from epitome to canones. Likewise, in the case of the second occurrence, in On illustrious men 135, where Jerome designates his own Chronicle, a 9

Jerome, Letter 108.26: in hoc solo patriae desiderium habuit, ut filium, nurum, neptem renuntiare saeculo Christo servire cognosceret. See Blaise s.v. saeculum. See also Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 379. 11 For this type of work, and the variety of titles, see the preface of Aulus Gellius, Attic nights. 12 TLL 9.2 (1968–81), 593–4 s.v. omnimodus. 13 For the title, which has to be reconstructed from Eusebius, Eclogae propheticae 1 and Ecclesiastical history 1.1.6, see Schwartz 1907, 1376. 10

62

Nummius Aemilianus Dexter

translation and continuation of Eusebius’ canones, by inverting the genitive construction used for that of Eusebius: chronicon omnimodae historiae. Significantly, neither form seems to be attested in the manuscript tradition of Jerome’s Chronicle: this usage appears to be unique to On illustrious men. The work is highly dependent on Eusebius for its information, and the clustering within it of a unique formula inspired by Eusebius is probably a result of this. Within On illustrious men, then, omnimoda historia translates the Eusebian usage of παντοδαπὴ ἱστορία. If we interpret the title of Dexter’s history in this context, we are entitled to expect a connection to Eusebius’ Chronicle. As stated above and indicated by his title, Eusebius’ Chronicle consisted of two parts. This leaves us with two options as to the contents of Dexter’s history. First, Dexter may have written a chronicle like Jerome’s, which translated and continued Eusebius’ canones or ‘tables’, that is, parallel columns with entries.14 Although this would be consistent with the two other occurrences of omnimoda historia in On illustrious men described above, it should be noted that Jerome, in all his references to such chronicles in On illustrious men as well as in the rest of his oeuvre, makes their nature clear by using terms such as chronicon, temporum liber, or chronographia.15 As this is absent in the case of Dexter, it may be more likely that Dexter translated the other part of Eusebius’ chronicle, viz. the ἐπιτομὴ παντοδαπῆς ἱστορίας Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ βαρβάρων. This first part of Eusebius’ Chronicle, often referred to in English as the Chronography, was παντοδαπός in the sense that it combined extracts and lists from earlier authors into a universal history. As opposed to authors such as Aelian or Favorinus, then, when applied to Eusebius, the title παντοδαπὴ ἱστορία signalled a history that was both universal in its coverage and varied through its use of material explicitly drawn from other authors – a combination that could be translated as ‘all-encompassing’. This part of Eusebius’ Chronicle was not translated by Jerome and today survives only partially in an Armenian translation.16 Given Jerome’s description of Dexter’s work as an omnimoda historia without further specification in terms of chronicon, temporum liber, or chronographia, Dexter’s omnimoda historia may well have been a Latin translation and/or adaptation of the first part of Eusebius’ Chronicle – the only one, in fact, that we know of. An omnimoda historia or ‘all-encompassing history’ in this Eusebian 14

Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 380. See the inventory at Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 380–1. For a translation with commentary, see Karst 1911.

15

16



Omnimoda historia?

63

sense fits perfectly with the information given about Dexter in the preface of Jerome’s On illustrious men: not only does it confirm Dexter’s interest in bringing a Christian past to the Latin world, but the complementary, rather than competitive, relationship between Dexter’s chronographical work and Jerome’s Chronicle may also explain why Dexter may have turned to Jerome with the request for On illustrious men, and why Jerome was happy to comply. Within On illustrious men, the entry on Dexter, located towards the end of the work, has the literary function of drawing attention, once more, to the figure of the dedicatee and confirming his persona as a Christian rooted in classical culture. The fact that Dexter wrote a history himself, confirms the impression given in the preface that he was intent on giving a Christian history to Latin-speaking Romans. This literary function, and the fact that Jerome has not yet read the work, may render one suspicious of the veracity of Dexter’s alleged literary activity. Indeed, no other trace of Dexter’s history has come down to us. This may, however, be pushing scepticism too far: literary function does not preclude the possibility that Dexter did indeed provide a Latin equivalent for Eusebius’ Greek ἐπιτομὴ παντοδαπῆς ἱστορίας Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ βαρβάρων. After all, Jerome seems to suggest that Dexter’s work was on his reading list (necdum legi).

5

Protadius History of Gaul

Protadius was a man from Gaul, who became praefectus urbi in 401.1 He arrived at the court of Milan in 395, but seems to have returned to Gaul before gaining the honour of Prefect of Rome. He is traditionally seen as a pagan, but Cameron 2011, 189 argues that he was a Christian on the basis of his rise and that of his brothers Florentinus and Minervius2 in the imperial administration after the battle of the Frigidus (394), which Theodosius I styled polemically as a confrontation between Christianity and paganism.3 The letters of Symmachus testify to Protadius’ interest in the history of Gaul and his plan to write a history of this province. T3 suggests that he was busy doing so in 396. We do not know the nature or scope of this work, but it is clear that it must have been heavily reliant on earlier narrative sources. T1 mentions priscas memorias, T2 prisca monumenta, and T3 ­monumenta priscorum, referring to works that covered (at least) the campaigns of Caesar in Gaul (58–50 BC) and the German campaigns of Germanicus (AD 14–16).4 It is likely, therefore, that Protadius’ History of Gaul covered that period. Symmachus’ formulation in T3 does indeed imply that the work was a compilation of earlier works.5 A compilatory form is in line with most of the historiographical works produced by the Roman aristocracy of this period.6 Excepting only the On Italy of Carminius (FHistLA 1) and the elusive Origo patavina (FHistLA 2), the local and non-Imperial focus of Protadius’ work is unparalleled. As such, it serves as a counterexample of the tendency noted by U. Eigler

1

PLRE I, 751; Chastagnol 1962, 253–5; Matthews 1975, 262 and 327; Cameron 2011, 187–9. PLRE I, 362 (2), PUR in 395–6 and PLRE I, 602 (2), comes sacrarum largitionum in 398/9. 3 Cameron 2011, 93–131, with further references. 4 On the meaning of these terms, see Thraede 1968, 271–2. 5 Wightman 1975, 102. 6 It has been suggested that such historiographic activity reflected an anti-Christian bias, on the basis of the idea that Christian pressure generated a return to the Roman past: Momigliano 1963; cf. Marcone 1987, 58. Cameron 2011 offers a rebuttal of this idea. 2

64

Historia?

65

for the aristocratic elite to remain wedded to an Imperial focus in contrast to Christian literature.7

Historia? T1: Symmachus, Letter 4.18.5 (Callu 1982, 99–100) Priscas Gallorum memorias deferri in manus tuas postulas. Revolve Patavini scriptoris extrema quibus res Gai Caesaris explicantur, aut si inpar est desiderio tuo Livius, sume ephemeridem C. Caesaris decerptam bibliotheculae meae, ut tibi muneri mitteretur. Haec te origines, situs, pugnas, et quidquid fuit in moribus aut legibus Galliarum, docebit. Enitar, si fors votum iuvet, etiam Plinii Secundi Germanica bella conquirere.

You ask that the ancient history of the Gauls be brought into your hands. Reread the last parts of the writer of Padua,8 in which the actions of Gaius Caesar are described, or if Livy does not meet your requirements, take the diary of Caesar,9 borrowed from my small library,10 so that it can be sent to you as a gift. This will teach you the origins, the locations, the battles and every aspect of the customs and the laws of Gaul. I shall make every effort, if Fate supports my wish, to also acquire the German wars of Pliny Secundus.11 Commentary Callu dates this letter to Protadius to spring 396.12 Protadius seems to have asked for three authors who could inform him about ancient Gaul: Livy, Caesar, and Pliny the Elder, of whom Symmachus could provide 7

Eigler 2013, 401. From the periochae of Livy, we know that Protadius needed books 103 and 104. On the popularity of Livy in Late Antiquity, especially as a model, see Eigler 2003, 224–33. On the reception of Livy, see de Franchis and Maréchaux in Mineo 2015. 9 The commentarii of Caesar were often called ephemeris in Late Antiquity: Servius, On Aeneid 11.743; Arator, To Parthenius 39–40, which is also a title in the manuscripts. Cf. Seel 1961, cxiv–cxxii; Wightman 1975, 95–100; Marcone 1987, 58. For the reception of Caesar in Late Antiquity, see Barnes 2009. Excerpts from Caesar’s work seem to have been in circulation (Orosius, Histories 6.7; Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 9.14.7, where they are attributed to Suetonius). Wightman 1975 speculates about the survival of a lost work of Caesar or Pseudo-Caesar, but that is unnecessary. 10 Cf. Symmachus, Letter 9.13 for his possession of Livy. 11 On this work, a history, in twenty books, which covered at least the campaigns of Germanicus (AD 14–16), see FRHist 80. This testimony is T4 in that edition. 12 Callu 1982, 98; cf. Marcone 1987, 56. 8

66 Protadius the first two.13 If Protadius’ reading list reflects the intended scope of his history, it would certainly cover the periods 58–50 BC and AD 14–16 at the very least. T2: Symmachus, Letter 4.36.2 (Callu 1982, 120) Adieci alteram paginam reddendam germano tuo, cum tibi fors in patriam reditum secundaverit. Asperserat nos ille iamdudum facundiae suae floribus, et sibi Galliarum prisca monumenta iuvando otio exscribenda mandaverat. Optato accidit, ut ei per te utrumque reddatur, honor epistulae meae et expetitae fructus historiae.

I have added another page that needs to be delivered to your brother, when fate has helped you return to your homeland. A while ago he had showered us with the flowers of his eloquence and had instructed us to copy for him the ancient annals of Gaul to entertain him during his leisure time. On top of his wish, it happens that through you, both things can be given to him in response, the honour of my letter and the delight of a sought-after history. Commentary This letter of 396 is addressed to Protadius’ brother, Minervius. Symmachus notes that he has indeed found a history for Protadius, which could be any of the three mentioned in T1, but most probably Caesar, as T1 shows that Symmachus had it in his own library. As in T1, Symmachus does not suggest that Protadius is writing a history. 14

T3: Symmachus, Letter 4.32.2 (Callu 1982, 115) Inde est quod nos frequenter adloqueris, quia omne tempus, ut quaeratur ingenio, otio vindicatur. Sed fiduciae tuae audacia nostra non cesserit. Haurias licet monumenta priscorum et ipse paginis ediscenda committas:

13

Cameron 2011, 524. Marcone 1987, 78 argues that it was sent together with Letter 4.18.

14

Historia?

67

sollicitabo te arentibus verbis, ut scriptis tuis, quae et amore et iudicio legere me necesse est, conpensem illorum damna quae neglego. Vale.

This is why you frequently address us, because every moment of your time, as demanded by your nature, is claimed for leisurely activity. But our boldness does not yield to your confidence. You may draw from the history of the ancients and entrust your knowledge to the pages yourself: I will urge you on with my dry words, so that I balance the damage of those things I neglect with your writings, which I cannot but read with love and appreciation. Commentary This letter, maybe dated to 396,15 implies that Protadius was writing a work that was based on earlier sources. It is tempting to connect this with T1 and T2 in order to conclude that he was composing a work on the history of Gaul, based, at the very least, on Livy and Caesar. The formula haurias licet monumenta priscorum et ipse paginis ediscenda committas implies that Protadius read earlier works to compose his own. He was, then, primarily interested in the older history of Gaul, possibly the Roman conquest, or information about pre-Roman Gaul contained in the works of Livy, Caesar, and Pliny the Elder. 15

Callu 1982, 114. Marcone 1987, 74 suggests a date around 400.

6

Naucellius Roman history

Iunius or Iulius Naucellius was a senator, a friend of Symmachus, and the author of a series of epigrams.1 Seven letters addressed to him by Symmachus have been preserved, all dated to the very end of the fourth century.2 The letter below is dated by its editor, J.-P. Callu, to 397.3 When this exchange took place, Naucellius was living in Spoleto and already well advanced in age. Naucellius is the author of several epigrams in the Epigrammata Bobiensia. His contribution to historiography was the translation of a Greek work on early Roman history. Its chronological limits are uncertain, but it may have covered the Republic. The passage in which Symmachus refers to the history is, however, corrupt, and so we cannot be sure what its precise content was. We do not accept, however, the traditional interpretation that Naucellius had translated an epitome of the constitutions of Aristotle.

Historia? T: Symmachus, Letter 3.11.3 (Callu 1982, 25–6) Non silebo alterum munus opusculi tui, quo priscam rem publicam4 ­cu­iusque5 huius6 ex libro Graeco in Latium transtulisti. Arma a Samnitibus, insignia ab Tuscis, leges de lare Lycurgi et Solonis sumpseramus: tuus nobis posthaec addidit labor peregrina monumenta quae iam sui nesciunt. Nunc

1

Epigrammata Bobiensia 2–9: cf. Speyer 1959. PLRE I, 617–18; Callu 1975, 269–70; Cameron 2011, 373–5. 2 Symmachus, Letter 3.10–16. 3 Callu 1982, 25 n. 4. 4 priscas res publicas Callu. 5 cuiusque PΠΓR, F 1 2 14–161 18 19 21 24 26 27 30 35 Callu : civesque F 3 4 8–10 12 16² 17 37 civitatisque F 31 aevique F 29 32 om. M, F 5 6 28. The sigla refer to the edition of Callu 1982. 6 huius PΠR, alii F eius F 4 12 37 om. M, F 5 6 28 nationis Seeck gentis Mommsen nominis Callu.

68

Historia?

69

vere civitas nostra populorum omnium parens facta est; docere enim singulas potest antiquitates suorum. Ipsa vero per se materia digna laudari quanto verborum stellatur auro? Nescias cultu an rebus magis voluminis honor gaudeat.

I will not keep silent about the other gift, your little work, in which you have transferred [the history of ] the ancient state, by whoever it may be, from a Greek book into Latium. We had taken our weapons from the Samnites, our insignia from the Etruscans,7 our laws from the Lares of Lycurgus and Solon:8 after these, your work has added for us foreign histories9 about which their own peoples10 have no knowledge anymore. Now, truthfully, our state has become the mother of all peoples,11 because she can teach to each of them their own antiquities. As for the subject itself, worthy of praise in its own right, with how many golden words is it made to shine? One could not know if the book’s glory rejoices more at its style or at its contents. Commentary The crucial expression in this letter (priscam rem publicam cuiusque huius) is corrupt and has been liberally corrected by scholars.12 Of its five words, the standard edition, edited by Callu, has corrected four to read: priscas res publicas cuiusque nominis: ‘the ancient republics of whatever name’. Let us see if we can make sense of the text without such a strong intervention. The singular rem publicam is found in all manuscripts and should therefore be maintained. What follows is more difficult. The reading huius is supported by the vast majority of manuscripts and cuiusque is supported by most of them: the alternatives civesque, civitatisque, and 7

A quotation from Sallust, The conspiracy of Catiline 51.38. On Sallust in Late Antiquity, see Canfora 1987; Pellizzari 1998, 89–90. For borrowings from the Samnites and Etruscans, see also Vergil, Aeneid 7.665 and Servius, On Aeneid 8.506. 8 See Cicero, On the laws 2.59. 9 The phrase peregrina monumenta refers to the translated book (Callu 1975, 276): cf. Symmachus, Panegyric for Valentinian II 2.24: ventilemus prisca monumenta; see also Protadius FHistLA 5 T1–3 (prisca monumenta). 10 That is, the very peoples who produced them. 11 Cf. Cicero, First Catilinarian 17: patria, quae communis est parens omnium nostrum. 12 Besides the apparatus of Callu 1982, see Callu 1975, 271; Speyer 1959, 3 n. 2, who suggests that huius is a dittography for cuius.

70 Naucellius aevique show that medieval scribes were puzzled by this passage. Some simply left cuiusque huius out. The reading cuiusque huius does not seem to make much sense: ‘of whoever it be this one’. A possible interpretation of this phrase is that Symmachus is consciously obscuring either the name of the state dealt with in the book or the name of its author. Such anonymity is also supported by the subsequent sentences: Symmachus talks indefinitely about peregrina monumenta, ‘records or histories of ­foreigners’, that are ignored by these foreigners themselves. Who these foreigners are, which nation or nations they belong to, remain obscure: they are not the Samnites, Etruscans, or Athenians, for Symmachus clearly distinguishes the dependency on these nations, known from Sallust and Cicero, from what Naucellius adds to this knowledge (tuus nobis posthaec addidit labor …). In fact, Callu 1975, 280 noted that only a very few manuscripts write the ligature hs instead of huius and notes that hs can also stand for hominis. He seeks to correct this to nominis, but hominis would also make sense: a work ‘by whatever man’. Even if there is no certainty, these indications suggest that we should understand the sentence as stating that Naucellius translated a work on the ancient history of Rome by an unnamed individual from Greek into Latin. Symmachus praises Naucellius’ labour for further demonstrating the truth of the traditional maxim that Rome is the parent of all nations. Together with the plural sui nesciunt and the reference to antiquitates in the following sentence, this has been taken to imply that his work translated a Greek epitome of the constitutions of Aristotle,13 prompting the emendation of Callu. Yet this distorts the meaning of the passage. Symmachus’ praise comes after he has pointed out, with a quotation from Sallust, that the Romans of his time already knew how many institutions they had borrowed from other nations. The translation by Naucellius adds another thing to this list of borrowed items, namely ‘foreign histories’ (peregrina monumenta): the translated work is, hyperbolically, put on a par with Samnite weaponry and Etruscan insignia as a thing the Romans have taken from other nations. Symmachus clearly states that Naucellius adds a work of history, a record (monumentum), to the things Rome has borrowed, and does not say that Rome borrowed a constitution.14 In this way, Rome, paradoxically, has become a mother to all nations: it has adopted 13

Stroux 1941, 73; Courcelle 1948, 5 n. 4; Speyer 1959, 3; Klein 1971, 61; Callu 1982, 228; Pellizzari 1998, 88–9; Cameron 2011, 564–5. 14 Callu 1975, 276 himself underlines that peregrina monumenta must refer to books, in casu the translated book.

Historia?

71

so many customs and knowledge from others that it can teach them about ancient things (antiquitates) they themselves may have forgotten (that is, Rome can teach the Samnites about their weaponry, the Etruscans about their insignia, and preserves histories in Latin that the Greeks, who originally produced them, ignore). Contrary to what is generally assumed, the phrases tuus nobis posthaec addidit labor peregrina monumenta quae iam sui nesciunt. Nunc vere civitas nostra populorum omnium parens facta est; docere enim singulas potest antiquitates suorum do not inform us about the content of the work of Naucellius, but only underscore that his contribution was on a par with earlier cultural borrowings by Rome.15 They do not imply that Naucellius wrote on constitutions of all (or many) nations. Read in this way, there is no justification to support Callu’s conjecture of priscas res publicas in the first sentence. We have already seen that the manuscript evidence does not support it, either. All current interpretations of the content of the work of Naucellius, with the dominant idea being that it was a translation of a summary of Aristotle’s constitutions,16 rely on the interpretation of the Latin we have just rebutted. Our reading implies that only the first sentence informs us about the content of the work and thus opens the discussion anew. More specifically, the correct interpretation hinges on the meaning of prisca res publica. Priscus means ‘ancient’, but does not necessarily refer to origins: in his letters to Protadius (FHistLA 5), Symmachus uses the same word to refer to the period of Caesar and Augustus. Res publica in Symmachus always refers to the Roman state, a usage that was common in later Latin.17 This implies that Naucellius translated a Greek work that dealt with Roman history. As the wide use of priscus indicates, this need not have been a work that dealt with Roman origins, as proposed by K. Thraede,18 but may also have covered the whole of Republican history. Such an interpretation fits well with the praise given by Symmachus in the last sentence: Ipsa vero per se materia digna laudari quanto verborum stellatur auro? Nescias cultu an rebus magis voluminis honor gaudeat. Given Symmachus’ general interest in the Roman Republic,19 such high praise 15

For example, Speyer 1959, 3, referring to the use of antiquitates in this sentence, argued that Naucellius had translated a work that discussed the history of constitutions and contained also antiquarian research on other peoples. 16 See n. 11; Pelizzari 1998, 88. 17 Suerbaum 1970, 147, 163–8, and 228 notes that in the Historia Augusta, Ammianus Marcellinus, and Orosius res publica means ‘the Roman state’. Occurrences in Symmachus follow this pattern. 18 Thraede 1968, 270–7, who imagined a work on the lines of that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. This implies reading rem publicam civesque huius. 19 Klein 1971, 60; Cracco Ruggini 1986.

72 Naucellius would suit a work on Roman history better than a general work on Greek constitutions. The phrase ex libro Graeco need not imply that the Greek history contained only one book, although the general assumption is that the original work was an epitome of the length of a single book.20 Yet liber can also designate a single work. Hence, we can only be certain that Naucellius translated a single work, not a single book. Works as different as the Roman antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the history of the civil wars by Appian or even the histories of Polybius would qualify, as would other, unknown or fragmentary works. 20

Cf. Pelizzari 1998, 88.

7

Anonymous History of Rome

Little more can be said about this author other than that he was an anonymous senator who composed a history of Rome, probably towards the end of the fourth century. That composing history was a fitting activity for a fourth-century senator is demonstrated by Dexter (FHistLA 4), Flavianus (FHistLA 3), Protadius (FHistLA 5), and Naucellius (FHistLA 6), as well as Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, and Festus. Though many attempts have been made to identify the author, it is safer to leave the issue open.1 We cannot know what period the author set out to cover. The Roman focus is in line with most other works attested.

Historia? T1: Symmachus, Letter 9.110.2 (Callu 2002, 63–6; cf. Seeck 1883, 265 ll. 10–16) Prope est ut te arguere debeam quod saeculo nostro Tullianum stilum famae parcus invideas. Respondebis omnem te operam condendae historiae deputasse. Ignosce avaritiae meae, si utrumque desidero. Nam pari nitore atque gravitate senatorias actiones et Romanae rei monumenta limasti ut plane Homerica appellatione usus περιδέξιον [id est aequimanum] te esse pronuntiem. Perge igitur quaeso et stude hanc posteris dotem relinquere, ut, quae divisa in singulis auctoribus ante placuerunt, eadem nunc in te coniuncta laudentur.

I very nearly have to accuse you, so thrifty of your fame, of denying our age a Ciceronian pen. You will answer that you devote all of your efforts to 1

See below.

73

74 Anonymous writing history. Forgive me my greed, if I desire both things. For you have polished your senatorial speeches and the history of Roman affairs2 with equal splendour3 and dignity, so that I proclaim that you are, using the Homeric appellation, ‘ambidextrous’.4 Therefore continue, I beg you, and commit yourself to leaving this gift to posterity, so that what was before pleasing in separate authors, be now praised united in your work. Commentary At an unknown date, c. 375–402 but probably towards the end of the century,5 Symmachus addresses an unknown author, encouraging him to commit more time to publishing his orations, rather than dedicating himself exclusively to writing history. He suggests that the Anonymous excels in both and would be one of the first writers to gain fame both as an historian and as an orator. This last statement refers to an understanding of history and rhetoric as two distinct literary practices.6 In line with the tastes of the fourth century, the model of rhetoric is clearly Cicero.7 Symmachus presumes that the Anonymous was working towards a history, but we cannot know if the work was ever finished or published. It was to be a history of Rome (Romanae rei monumenta), but there is not much more one can say. Symmachus suggests that it was in a high rhetorical 2

Monumentum is often used by Cicero to talk about history: see L&S s.v. monumentum B.2. Eigler 2003, 196 suggests an allusion to Livy, pr. 10 (Hoc illud est praecipue in cognitione rerum salubre ac frugiferum, omnis te exempli documenta in inlustri posita monumento intueri), where monumentum is also used. Yet the term monumentum is run-of-the-mill in Symmachus’ descriptions of historiography and cannot bear so much weight: see Protadius (FHistLA 5) and Naucellius (FHistLA 6). 3 Eigler 2003, 196 argues that this quality is traditionally ascribed to Livy, with reference to Quintilian, Institutes of oratory 10.1.32. 4 Iliad 21.163. Symmachus means that the Anonymous is as equally accomplished in oratory as he is in historiography, and not that the author used few speeches in his history: the last interpretation was projected onto the text by those who wrongly believed that the letter was sent to Ammianus Marcellinus (see below): Pighi 1948, xi; Naudé 1956, 109. Ensslin 1923, 7–8 suggested that Symmachus used a Greek word because he was writing to a Greek-speaker, that is, Ammianus. These ideas have been refuted by Cameron 1964, 16–17. 5 Seeck 1883, ccii–ccix notes that most letters in book 9 date from the last decade. Extant datings presuppose a certain identification. Callu 2002, 64 dates the letter to before 390, but this presupposes his identification of the addressee with Nicomachus Flavianus. Cameron 1964, 18 suggests 396–7, when the other letters to Naucellius (FHistLA 6) are written. 6 On the various ways in which this traditional opposition was constructed, see Rees 2010; Ross 2016; and Conterno and Van Hoof forthcoming. 7 Symmachus only suggests Cicero as a model for the oratory of the Anonymous, as it is the latter’s occupation with historiography that denies his age the Ciceronian pen. Scholars who have accepted the identification with Ammianus Marcellinus (see below) have tended to understand that Symmachus also wishes to find Ciceronian qualities in historiography. Ammianus did indeed take Cicero as a model: Blockley 1998 and 2001; G. Kelly 2007b, 223 and 2008, 214.

Historia?

75

style (pari nitore atque gravitate). Yet hyperbole is a recurring feature of his compliments, and so we cannot draw many conclusions from this.8 Eigler argues that Symmachus hints at a work in Livian style, that is, rhetorically polished and focused on the exemplary actions of individuals.9 This interpretation relies heavily on the allusions to Livy he detects, but they are not strong enough to warrant the interpretation that the work covered the same period as Livy and was similar in outlook. Crucially, we should remember that we see here a statement of what Symmachus thinks the stylistic norm should be, rather than a description of what the style of the author is.10 The style and subject matter of this history must remain open – leaving aside the fact that we cannot even know for sure if the Anonymous ever circulated or finished his work. The identity of the author cannot be specified, either. He must be a senator, as Symmachus speaks of orations made in the senate. Seeck identified the anonymous addressee with Ammianus Marcellinus.11 This identification was often accepted12 until it was conclusively refuted by Alan Cameron.13 It suffices to note that there is no hint that Ammianus was a senator. Cameron’s own proposal, that Symmachus writes to Naucellius (FHistLA 6),14 is also problematic. It contravenes Symmachus’ principle of grouping letters to individual correspondents.15 This objection can be circumvented by the fact that the last books were edited by an unknown, later editor16 who might have found an additional letter addressed to Naucellius and inserted it here. Less easy to circumvent is the fact that Naucellius translated a Greek work of Roman history, whereas this letter implies that the Anonymous wrote an original work of history in Latin.17 Tascius Victorianus, who prepared an edition of Livy, is also an unlikely

8

Roda 1981, 244 notes that no extant author, not even Ammianus Marcellinus, lives up to the stylistic level that Symmachus suggests. 9 Eigler 2003, 197–9. 10 As is assumed even by Cameron 1964, 16. 11 Seeck 1894c, 1846. 12 E.g. Ensslin 1923, 7; Thompson 1947, 18; Momigliano 1963, 97. 13 The scholarship accepting the identification with Ammianus Marcellinus is reviewed in Cameron 1964, 16–17; Roda 1981, 241–4. 14 Cameron 1964, 18. 15 Roda 1981, 244; Salzman and Roberts 2011, l–lii. 16 Sogno 2017, 180. 17 Eigler 2003, 196. See our discussion of Naucellius. Callu 2002, 125 ruled out identification with Naucellius on the basis of the fact that Naucellius translated a Greek summary of ancient constitutions and did not write a history of Rome. But, as we have shown, this is incorrect. Cameron 2011, 564–5 accepts Callu’s interpretation of the nature of Naucellius’ work, rendering his earlier identification of Naucellius in this letter impossible.

76 Anonymous identification, as the letter seems to presuppose an original composition.18 Likewise, Protadius (FHistLA 5) is no more likely a candidate, as his history dealt with Gaul and not with Rome.19 Finally, Callu’s identification of the addressee with Flavianus20 was refuted by Alan Cameron, who notes that the compliments in the letter are too formal to suit Flavianus, who was Symmachus’ oldest friend, and that all letters to Flavianus are grouped in book 2 of the Letters.21 Cameron himself, in his latest discussion, abandoned the idea that we are dealing with Naucellius and suggested instead that we may be dealing with the author of the Epitome de Caesaribus. This must also remain speculative, and it is therefore better to list this Anonymous as a separate author. 18

Proposed by Demandt 1982, 256 and rejected by Eigler 2003, 196. Callu 2002, 125. 20 Callu 1999, 95; Callu 2002, 64; Prchlík 2015, 14. On Flavianus, see above FHistLA 3. 21 Cameron 2011, 635. See the similar remarks by Roda 1981, 244. 19

8

Pseudo-Hegesippus History of the Jewish kings

Hegesippus is the name given by the manuscript tradition to a Latin edition of the Jewish war of Flavius Josephus, usually called by its medieval title De excidio Hierosolymitano (The destruction of Jerusalem). Reducing the original seven books down to five, the author does not offer a literal translation, but sometimes deals freely with the material.1 The name Hegesippus is assumed to be a corruption of Josephus.2 The author mentions Constantinople and hence must postdate 325.3 The work is traditionally dated to the fourth century, but the grounds for this are weak.4 In a letter of 398 Jerome denies that he is the author of a translation of the Jewish war, which has been taken to attest to the existence of PseudoHegesippus at that time.5 Yet there existed another, more literal, translation of Josephus’ War in seven books which, according to Cassiodorus, was variously attributed to Jerome, Ambrose, and Rufinus.6 Jerome may well be referring to that work. It is sometimes assumed that Pseudo-Hegesippus alludes to the reconquest of Britain by count Theodosius c. 370.7 This allusion is located in a speech by Agrippa and is thus situated in the middle

1

Bell 1977, 1987; Somenzi 2009. Somenzi 2009, 56–8: derivation from e Josippi historia. The work has been attributed to a Jew named Isaac (Mras and Ussani 1932, xxxii–xxxvii; Mras 1958; cf. Schreckenberg 1972, 56–8 for an overview of the discussion) and to Ambrose (see now Somenzi 2009). The latter is based on the grounds that some manuscripts attribute the work to Ambrose. The assumption that the author was a converted Jew (Mras 1958; Callu 1987, 136) is, given the great interest among Christians for Josephus, groundless: Josephus is entirely preserved through the Christian tradition. 3 Pseudo-Hegesippus, The Jewish war 3.5. 4 Callu 1987. 5 Pollard 2015, 68 dates the work c. 370. 6 Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.17. 7 Pseudo-Hegesippus, The Jewish war 2.9: Testis est Brittania extra orbem posita sed Romanorum virtute in orbem redacta. … Nam si verum quaeramus, ut supra diximus, terra ipsa infra Romanum imperium est, supra quam progressa Romana virtus ultra oceanum alterum sibi orbem quaesivit et in Brittania sibi remotam a confino terrarum novam invenit possessionem. 2

77

78 Pseudo-Hegesippus of the first century AD, when Claudius had just conquered Britain.8 In addition, the phrase merely reproduces the traditional view of Britain as the ultimate frontier in the North, which was always said to have been recently conquered9 – even by Jordanes in the sixth century.10 The fact that the author emphasizes the strength and expanse of the Empire11 does not necessitate a date before the battle of Adrianople in 378 or the sack of Rome in 410: it suffices to read Orosius to see that one could still write positively about the state of the Empire in 417/18. The only certain terminus ante quem is the fact that Cyprian, bishop of Toulon (524–46), composed a new preface to the work. In sum, a fourth-century date is possible, but far from necessary. Pseudo-Hegesippus has been exclusively studied in relation to the reception of Flavius Josephus, but his lost work on the history of the Jews under the kings up to the taking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC allows a better understanding of his entire oeuvre. The lost work displays a distinct parallel with the extant The Jewish war: the latter narrates the second period of kingship, under the Hasmoneans until the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70. Hegesippus thus had a particular interest in Jewish kingship and how it had detrimental effects on Judaism. In addition, because the two works trace a similar course of events, Jewish history appears as a cyclical repetition. Similarity in outlook is emphasized by the fact that Hegesippus regularly cites or alludes to the Books of Kings in The Jewish war.12 If the two works conform to the critical, Christian, view of the Jews in understanding the sack of AD 70 as God’s punishment for not accepting the Messiah, the preface does conclude that the Jews always kept the faith in God. The focus on the dangers of kingship may avert an overly strong emphasis on the Jewish rejection of God. By setting the lost history next to the extant work, Hegesippus appears as something more than a link in the chain in the transmission of 8

The same objection applies to the dating proposed by Callu 1987, 136 (352–8). He derives a terminus ante quem from Pseudo-Hegesippus, The Jewish war 5.15: Nam de Palestinis quid loquar quos unius praesidis potestas cohercet? He takes this to imply that the work must have been written before 358 when Palestine was governed by various governors. But the phrase comes from a speech given by Josephus. Moreover, there is also no reason to suppose that the translation was prompted by the Jewish revolt in the East in 352, which supposedly recalled the revolt described by Josephus. 9 Tacitus, Agricola 10; Pomponius Mela 3.49. 10 Jordanes, Getica 10. Cf. Romm 1992, 141; Natal 2018a. 11 Pseudo-Hegesippus, The Jewish war 2.9 – again in the speech by Agrippa. 12 Pseudo-Hegesippus, The Jewish war 3.16.1 (1 Kings 31.4), 3.17.1 (1 Kings 31.4), 5.2.1 (1 Kings 16.23, 2 Kings 24.12), 5.16.1 (4 Kings 6.25–7.20). Analysis in Somenzi 2009, 63–74, noting the use of the Vetus Latina.

Historia?

79

Josephus. Rather, he is to be seen as an author of sacred history, that is, history as narrated in the Bible.13 Sacred history as a genre distinguished itself from chronicle writing by taking a narrative form and by focusing exclusively on events affecting the Jewish people. Josephus was classed in proximity to the biblical writers,14 and Pseudo-Hegesippus confirms this picture. He also conforms to the habit of ranking Josephus lower than the Bible.15 He was, therefore, less interested in transmitting Josephus to posterity than in offering a dual account of how the two sacks of Jerusalem came about. It may well have been intended to be a warning to contemporary Christians as much as a moralizing tale about the Jews. The focus on kingship may even suggest a political message and invite a reading as a Christian ‘mirror of princes’. Finally, the fact that PseudoHegesippus is the author of two works renders it even less likely that he is to be identified with Ambrose:16 neither work is ever identified as being composed by him.

Historia? T: Pseudo-Hegesippus, The Jewish war pr.1 (Mras and Ussani 1932, 3) Quattuor libros Regnorum quos scriptura complexa est sacra, etiam ipse stilo persecutus usque ad captivitatem Iudaeorum murique excidium et Babylonis triumphos historiae in morem composui.

Having myself narrated with my own pen the four Books of Kings17 which Sacred Scripture contains, until the captivity of the Jews and the fall of the city,18 I also composed the victories of the Babylonians in a historical manner.

13

For definition and further examples, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a, L–LII. Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical history 5.24. 15 Pseudo-Hegesippus, The Jewish war pr.2. 16 As defended by Somenzi 2009. 17 The reference is to the division of the biblical books as found in the Septuagint, which has four ‘books of the kings’, what the Vulgate calls 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. For the perception of the Books of Kings as historical books, see, e.g., Paulinus of Nola, Letter 21.1: in sacra Regnorum admiramur historia. 18 Jerusalem was taken in 586 BC by the Babylonians, ushering in the period of exile. 14

80 Pseudo-Hegesippus Commentary The very first sentence of the preface of The Jewish war indicates that Hegesippus’ historiographical intention was not merely to translate and adapt Josephus: he states that he has narrated the four Books of Kings, which covered the history of the kings of Israel from Saul until the sack of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC, in a historical manner. He defines himself as an historian (historiae in morem) and emphasizes his own contribution (ipse stilo persecutus), that is, the work was not simply a selection of extracts from the Bible. We cannot know the title of the work.

9

Sulpicius Alexander History

Sulpicius Alexander is known only from the citations of his history by Gregory of Tours, writing c. 591–4.1 Gregory does not give us any information about Sulpicius, so we are reduced to drawing inferences from the seven fragments he proffers. Selected by Gregory, who sought to ascertain if the Franks had kings when they first appeared in the historical record,2 the fragments cover events from 388 to 393. F1 is drawn from book 3, F2 from book 4. Both fragments deal with the end of the usurpation of Maximus in 388, making it possible that book 3 ended with the execution of Magnus Maximus (28 July 388) and that book 4 began with the actions taken against the last remnants of his rule.3 The title of Sulpicius’ work was probably Historia (cf. F1), a generic title in line with literary habits of the period. Broadly, the fragments follow a chronological order, but there may be a second logic at play in their arrangement. Gregory deduces from Sulpicius that at the end of the fourth century the Franks were led by duces, the term used in F1–3. From F4 onwards, Gregory quotes passages in which Sulpicius uses other labels: regales (F4), subreguli (F6), and reges (F7).4 This does not seem to affect the chronological order, except, maybe, for F6.5 Although Gregory has selected these fragments on the basis of what they say about the leaders of the Franks, they nevertheless betray the fact 1

PLRE II, 59–60 (25). He is sometimes identified with Alexander, vir ornatissimus, mentioned by Symmachus, Letter 1.107 (PLRE I, 42 (10); cf. Croke 2012, 413) or the tribunus et notarius Alexander mentioned in Symmachus, Letter 5.39 (PLRE I, 42 (11); cf. Seeck 1894b, who identifies Alexander 10 and 11). Callu 2002, 105 rejects the possibility that he might be identifiable with still another Alexander mentioned in Symmachus, Letter 9.27 (Stroheker 1970a, 274). There is nothing to prove any of these identifications and one should note that the name Alexander was very common. 2 Reimitz 2015a, 22–3 and 54. See Frigeridus (FHistLA 10), where we note that we cannot be certain if Gregory cited all of the passages from Sulpicius referring to the Franks. 3 Paschoud 1997, 143. 4 See further discussion below p. 88. 5 See further discussion in the commentary on F6 and p. 88 below regarding the question of whether the changing vocabulary reflects changes in the ruling structures of the Franks.

81

82

Sulpicius Alexander

that the history of Sulpicius had a traditional focus on imperial action: F1–2 are explicitly situated in the context of the suppression of the usurpation of Magnus Maximus in 388, F5 is focused on Valentinian II, F7 on the usurper Eugenius. The negative characterization of Arbogast, depicted as the nemesis of Valentinian II and the man who raised Eugenius, clearly indicates the loyalist position of Sulpicius. F5 comes after a discussion of events in Thrace, and it thus seems likely that Sulpicius dealt with Eastern events, as well6 – even if it is possible that he only mentioned events in Thrace to explain why Theodosius left Italy in 391. Even so, Sulpicius’ history would still have a scope that is incompatible with a regional history. All references to the Franks refer to the raids led by Genobaudes, Sunno, and Marcomer, who seem to have been the major cause of trouble on the Rhine frontier c. 388–95 and the last two of whom are also mentioned in Claudian, On the consulship of Stilicho 1.239–45. This counsels against thinking that Sulpicius had a particular interest in the Franks or the Rhine frontier.7 Sulpicius is usually described as a successor of Ammianus Marcellinus,8 an interpretation that has influenced proposed reconstructions of the work. The year 378 is often presumed as a starting point, as it marks both the end point of Ammianus’ res gestae and the death of an emperor, a usual end point for a book. As the fragments run until 393, an end date of 395, the death of Theodosius I, has been suggested. As we know that book 3 ran until 388, we then would have a coverage of about three years per book.9 Pursuing the same logic, F. Paschoud argues that F3–7 are all drawn from book 4.10 Book 4 would then cover the period from the end of 388 until at least 393.11 Paschoud even suggests that book 4 ran until the death of Theodosius (395) and that the work may have started with the deaths of Valentinian I in the West (375) and Valens in the East (378).12 Even if one accepts that Sulpicius continued Ammianus, Paschoud’s proposal is unlikely. It would make book 4 cover double the number of years (seven years) treated in the earlier books, which would only count c. three years 6

Hansen 1983, 89. Pace Oldoni 1972, 657–64 and 670–2, and 1981, liv; Zecchini 1993, 244. It is on these grounds that Zecchini suggests a starting date of 383, but the Franks only occur in our sources from 387/8 onwards. 8 Seeck 1894b; Hansen 1983, 89; Paschoud 1997, 143. Zecchini 2003, 334 suggests that he may have been pagan. 9 Stroheker 1970a, 274; Hansen 1983, 90. 10 Zecchini 1993, 244 argues against this idea. Paschoud 1998a, 313 defends his view. 11 Paschoud 1997, 143. 12 Paschoud 1997, 143. 7



Sulpicius Alexander

83

per book. Even if one accepts 375 as a starting point, the average for books 1–3 would be four years, still making book 4 deal with a substantially longer period. More generally, the label ‘continuator of Ammianus’ may have come too easily to Sulpicius. We do not know if Sulpicius continued Ammianus.13 Indeed, the whole idea presumes that Ammianus was a model to be continued, but we do not know if Ammianus was even being read in this period.14 In order to assess the work’s coverage, we ought to know more about the length of Sulpicius’ books and the speed of his narration: knowing that F3 comes from book 3 and F4 from book 4 does not help us very much. F1 suggests a speed of narration slower than that seen in Frigeridus15 and equal to that used in similar episodes in Ammianus,16 even if the latter often narrates more slowly than does Sulpicius.17 In the other fragments, the speed of narration is higher and the level of detail lower. If this is representative of the work as a whole, this fact suggests that Sulpicius’ narration was, in general, faster than Ammianus’ and that F1, with its echoes of the defeat of Varus, was a set piece that deviated from the usual speed of narration. This still does not permit us to speculate about the original book divisions of the work, but it implies that parallels with Ammianus should not be drawn too quickly. In fact, the first fragment comes from book 3, and we might, therefore, imagine a work on the lines of that of the Greek historian Zosimus (c. 500), whose first books narrate the rise of Rome and the history of the Empire at high speed. The narration then slows to cover the fourth century. The work is also rather unlike Ammianus in that it has a less mannerist style.18 The prose does not display

13

Zecchini 1993, 244 argues against the idea, adducing the different title (historia vs. res gestae) and alleging a Gallic perspective for Sulpicius. As Paschoud 1998a, 313–14 notes, such arguments are not very strong – and the idea of a Gallic perspective is mistaken anyway (see above). 14 The first certain reader of Ammianus Marcellinus is the grammarian Priscian, Institutiones 9.51, in the early sixth century. See the introduction (p. 16) for earlier knowledge of Ammianus suggested by some scholars. 15 See below Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus (FHistLA 10). 16 E.g. Ammianus Marcellinus 28.5.1–7. 17 E.g. Ammianus Marcellinus 28.6, 29.4, 29.6. 18 Hansen 1983, 90. He also emphasizes the use of archaizing vocabulary and of expressions that recall the style of Sallust and Tacitus, on the part of Sulpicius. Hansen’s only example of archaizing vocabulary is primo diluculo (F1), but the expression is actually very widespread: it appears in the Vulgate translation of the Bible (Daniel 6.19). He further refers to expressions of the type aperta camporum and extrema silvarum (F1), considered to be typical of Tacitus and Sallust. Yet such expressions are quite common (e.g. Augustine, Homily 352 (PL 39.1552): aperta futurorum; Orosius, Histories 2.8.4: extrema copiarum) and may not be deliberate imitations of Tacitus and Sallust. Moreover, the examples given by Hansen are the only two in the fragments. He cites a third example in ulterioribus collium (F6), but this is in fact in ulterioribus collium iugis. We therefore prefer not to follow Hansen’s judgement on Sulpicius’ style.

84

Sulpicius Alexander

any clausulae, but stylistic analysis is difficult because we cannot know to what degree we are dealing with literal quotations.19 Not much can be said regarding the end date of Sulpicius’ work. It seems likely that Sulpicius ended before Frigeridus, the second historian quoted by Gregory for the early history of the Franks, started.20 Yet this only yields the year 406/7 (or slightly later21) as the latest possible date. Importantly, if we accept that Sulpicius followed the general habit of taking Imperial reigns as chronological markers, this renders an end date of 408 (the death of Arcadius) possible in addition to 395. It is usually assumed that Sulpicius wrote soon after the presumed end date of 395, but F7 may indicate a greater temporal distance (see the commentary ad loc.).22 Indeed, Ammianus Marcellinus himself is an example of an historian publishing his work at least a decade after its end point.23

Historia F1: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch-Levison 1951, 52.13–54.6) De Francorum vero regibus, quis fuerit primus, a multis ignoratur. Nam cum multa de eis Sulpici Alexandri narret historia, non tamen regem primum eorum ullatinus nominat, sed duces eos habuisse dicit. Quae tamen de eisdem referat, memorare videtur. Nam cum dicit, Maximum intra Aquileiam, amissam omnem spem imperii, quasi amentem resedere, ­adiungit: Eo tempore Genobaude, Marcomere et Sunnone ducibus Franci in Germaniam prorupere, ac pluribus mortalium limite inrupto caesis, fertiles maxime pagus depopulati, Agrippinensi etiam Coloniae metum incusserunt. Quod ubi Treverus perlatum est, Nanninus et Quintinus militaris magistri, quibus infantiam filii et defensionem Galliarum ­ Maximus commiserat, collecto exercitu, apud Agripinam convenerunt. Sed onusti praeda hostes, provinciarum opima depopulati, Rhenum trans­ ierunt, pluribus suorum in Romano relictis solo, ad repetendam depopulationem paratis, cum quibus congressus Romanis adcomodus fuit, multis

19

Wood 1992, 13; Paschoud 1997, 147. For the suggestions that Gregory consulted a single manuscript and that the manuscript continuously numbered the books of the works of Sulpicius and Frigeridus, see Oldoni 1981, liv, and our criticism below: Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus (FHistLA 10). 21 See Frigeridus (FHistLA 10). 22 Humphries 1996, 173 speculates that Prosper Tiro may have used Sulpicius for his chronicle, which would yield a terminus ante quem of 433, the date of the first edition of Prosper Tiro’s chronicle. 23 G. Kelly 2008, 8. 20

Historia

85

Francorum apud Carbonariam ferro perimptis. Cumque consultaretur succensu, an in Franciam transire deberit, Nannenus abnuit, quia non inparatus et in locis suis indubiae fortiores futurus sciebat. Quod cum Quintino et reliquis viris militaribus displicuisset, Nanneno Mogantiacum reverso, Quintinus cum exercitu circa Nivisium castellum Rhenum transgressus, secundis a fluvio castris, casas habitatoribus vacuas atque ingentes vicos distitutos offendit. Franci enim simulatu metu se in remotiores saltus reciperant, concidibus per extrema silvarum procuratis. Itaque universis domibus exustis, in quas saevire soliditas ignava victoriae consummationem reponebat, nocte sollicita militis sub armorum onere duxerant. Ac primo diluculo Quintino proelii duci ingressi saltus, in medium fere diem inplicantes se erroribus viarum, toto pervagati sunt. Tandem cum ingentibus saeptis omnia a solido clausa offendissent, in palustres campus24, qui silvis iungebantur, prorumpere molientibus, hostium rare apparuere, qui coniuncti arborum truncis vel concidibus superstantes, velut e fasti­ giis turrium sagittas turmentorum ritu effudere inlitas herbarum venenis, ut summe cutis neque letalibus inflicta locis vulnera aut25 dubiae mortis sequerentur. Dehinc maiore multitudine hostium circumfusus exercitus, in aperta camporum, quae libera Franci reliquerant, avide effusus est. Ac primi equites voraginibus inmersi, permixtis hominum iumentorumque corporibus, ruinam invicem suorum oppraessi sunt. Pedites etiam, quos nulla onera equorum calcaverunt, inplicati limo, egre explecantes gressum, rursus se, qui paulo ante vix emerserant, silvis trepidantes occulebant. Perturbatis ergo ordinibus, caesae legionis. Heraclio Iovinianorum tribuno ac paene omnibus qui militibus praeerant extinctis, paucis effugium totum nox et latibula silvarum praestiterunt. Haec in tertio historiae libro narravit.

As for the kings of the Franks26, it is unknown to many who the first king was. For although the history of Sulpicius Alexander says a lot about them, it does not mention their first king at all, but it says that they had 24

Read campos. Read haud. The Franks first appear in our sources in relation to events of the middle of the third century (Siegmund 2000, 13 with reference to Zonaras, Extracts of history 222–4 (AD 257/9); see also Aurelius Victor, Caesars 33.3); first references in contemporary sources in Panegyrici Latini 10(2).10.4, 11(3).5.4. Part of the Franks were settled in the Roman Empire in the course of the fourth century, whilst other Frankish groups lived at its borders.

25

26

86

Sulpicius Alexander

commanders (duces).27 Yet what it says about them seems well worth remembering. Because when he says that Maximus, having lost all hope of power, retreated to Aquileia28 like a fool, he adds: At that time, the Franks, who had Genobaudes,29 Marcomer, and Sunno30 as their commanders, invaded Germania,31 and, after having killed many people when they crossed the border, they laid waste to the most fertile districts and also menaced Cologne. When this news reached Trier, Nanninus32 and Quintinus33, the magistri militum34 to whom Maximus35 had entrusted his son,36 still a child, and the defence of Gaul, raised an army and gathered in Cologne. But the enemy, who was loaded with plunder and who had devastated the fertile parts of the provinces, crossed the Rhine, leaving a substantial part of their men on Roman soil, ready to resume their plundering. It was easy for the Romans to enter into battle with them, and many of the Franks were slain by the sword at the Kohlenwald.37 And when it was discussed in anger whether they should cross over to Francia, Nannenus refused, because he knew that they [the Franks] were not unprepared and that they would undoubtedly be stronger in their own lands. This did not please Quintinus and the other soldiers, and after Nannenus had returned to Mainz, Quintinus crossed

27

For more on the term dux, see the appendix below p. 88, after the commentary. This situates these events in the summer of 388: cf. Zöllner 1970, 23; James 1988, 52. Nonn 2010, 59 suggests that the attack happened in the region of Xanten. 29 This Frankish commander is only attested here. Reichert and Castritius 1998 suggest that he was king of a Frankish tribe. 30 Marcomer (PLRE I, 557; Kehne 2001) and Sunno (PLRE I, 860; Castritius 2005b) are also attested in Claudian, On the consulship of Stilicho 1.239–45, where the hold of Stilicho over the Franks is illustrated by Marcomer having been sent into exile and Sunno having been killed by his own people. Claudian suggests a date somewhere between 392 and 397 for these events. Thus from 388 until the mid-390s Sunno and Marcomer caused trouble for Rome. See below p. 96 n. 75 for Marcomer as, presumably, a leader of the Ampsivarii. 31 That is, the provinces Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. The fragments suggest widespread raids (and hence also a broad response in F5), but it was the threat to Cologne that spurred imperial action. 32 Nannenus or Nanninus (not Nannienus as in PLRE I, 615–16) had commanded troops in northern Gaul since 370. Before this episode he is attested in 378, also in Germania, presumably as comes rei militaris or comes domesticorum (Ammianus Marcellinus 31.10.6). 33 Quintinus (PLRE I, 760) is only attested here and was presumably magister militum appointed by Maximus. 34 Militaris magistri is interpreted by PLRE I, 616 and 760 as magistri militum (per Gallias), appointed by the usurper Maximus. Demandt 1970, 606–7 identifies Quintinus as magister peditum and Nannenus as magister equitum per Gallias. They must have been appointed when Maximus left Trier and started his campaign against Italy in 387. 35 Magnus Maximus, usurper 383–8: PLRE I, 588 (39); Saylor Rodgers 1981; McLynn 1994 passim; Errington 2006, 33–4; Mitchell 2007, 86–7; Lunn-Rockliffe 2010; McEvoy 2013, 83–6. 36 Flavius Victor (cf. F2): PLRE I, 961 (14). He stayed behind when his father marched on Italy and was killed in Gaul by Arbogast (Consularia Constantinopolitana a. 388; Zosimus, New history 4.47.1). 37 The Kohlenwald (which ran from Bavais to Leuven) is first mentioned here: Schmidt-Wiegand 1981; Dierkens 2018. The Romans thus destroyed the Frankish groups that were left within the Empire. 28

Historia

87

the Rhine with his army near Fort Nivisium.38 Two days’ march from the river he found the houses empty of their inhabitants and the large villages abandoned. For the Franks, feigning fear, had retreated to the more remote woods, constructing barricades at the ends of the forest.39 The soldiers burned all the houses down, with their cowardly firmness considering the plundering the celebration of victory. Then they passed a restless night under the weight of their armour. At the break of dawn, they entered the forest with Quintinus in command for the battle. Around noon, they were completely lost, confused by their ignorance of the roads40. At last, finding everything solidly closed off with enormous fences, they tried to clear a path to the marshy fields that lie next to the woods. Here and there enemies appeared who, secured to tree trunks or standing on barriers, as if from the tops of towers, threw arrows covered with poison made of herbs as missiles,41 so that wounds inflicted on the surface of the skin and not in vital places would undoubtedly lead to death. Then the army, encircled by a greater multitude of enemies, rushed hurriedly to the open ground of the fields, which the Franks had left accessible. And the first horsemen plunged into the abyss, where bodies of men and animals were mixed up, and they were, in turn, all pushed down by the fall of their own [horses]. The infantrymen too, who were not pushed down by the weight of their horses, got stuck in the mud, struggling to free their feet, and, scared, hid again in the woods that they had barely left moments ago. With the ranks thus in disarray, the legions were slaughtered. Heraclius, tribune of the Joviniani42, and almost everyone who commanded the ­soldiers, was killed, and the night and hiding places in the woods provided safe refuge for few. This he tells in the third book of his History. Commentary This fairly detailed account of the defeat of Quintinus in the summer of 38843 is drawn from book 3 of Sulpicius Alexander. The episode broadly recalls the famous defeat of Varus in AD 9,44 even if there do not seem to 38

Modern Neuss, opposite Düsseldorf. For the same tactic, see Ammianus Marcellinus 16.11.8. 40 For the expression, see Livy 24.17. 41 Agathias (Histories 2.5.4) alleges that the Franks did not use bows in warfare (cf. Bachrach 1972, 131–41). For evidence of poisoned arrows, see Lex Salica 17.2 with Bachrach 2001, 356 n. 73. 42 Heraclius is only attested here (PLRE I, 419 (5)). On the legion of the Ioviani (not Ioviniani), see Woods 1995. It had originated as an imperial guard under Diocletian but had later become part of the field army. 43 Errington 2006, 53. 44 Castritius 2005a, 129. 39

88

Sulpicius Alexander

be any allusions to accounts of that event.45 Yet the broad outlook of the narrative, with an over-confident commander being trapped by barbarians and the loss of entire legions, is similar. The parallel may have been obvious to contemporary observers, as the Romans did not suffer any other defeat against the Franks in the fourth century. The high level of unique information, especially regarding the individuals involved, suggests that Sulpicius was well informed, even if there is no indication as to how he acquired the information. Appendix In the fourth century the Franks appear to have consisted of smaller groups ruled by individual rulers (Ewig 1976; Geary 1988, 78–82; Siegmund 2000, 13–14; Nonn 2010, 15–31; Scholz 2015, 11–19). Their exact appellation and, relatedly, the degree to which our Roman sources offer accurate information about the way the Franks were ruled are subjects of debate. The term dux is very ambiguous in this context. Writing in the middle of the seventh century, the Continuatio Havniensis of Prosper a. 451 (Mommsen 1892, 302) echoes Gregory’s view by stating that ‘the Frankish nation did not have kings but was content with duces’ (non enim tunc reges Francorum gens habebat, sed ducibus contenti erant). By Gregory’s time, dux had assumed a technical meaning, designating Merovingian nobles, but this meaning cannot be retrojected back onto Sulpicius. He clearly uses the term to designate a military commander in a general sense, the normal Roman meaning of the word (cf. Castritius 2005b, 135). Yet the situation in our sources is more complex. Sulpicius calls the same Frankish commanders, Marcomer and Sunno, not just duces, but also regales (F4) and subreguli (F6); he also adds a general reference to the reges (F7) of the Franks and Alamanni. In addition, Claudian, On the consulship of Stilicho 1.239–45 speaks about reges who were imposed on the Franks by Rome and calls Sunno and Marcomer kings. Ammianus Marcellinus knows of individuals who are kings of the Franks (31.10.6), as do other Roman sources (Paulinus, Life of Ambrose 30.1, mentioning reges). As terms indicating royal authority appear in Sulpicius related to events later than the ones for which Sulpicius uses dux, scholars have been tempted to read into this sequence a development of Frankish ruling structures. Anton 2000, 5 has argued that Sunno, Marcomer, and Genobaudes were only independent commanders 45

Velleius Paterculus, History of Rome 2.117–20; Tacitus, Annals 1.60–6; Suetonius, Life of Augustus 23; Florus, Epitome 2.30; Cassius Dio 56.18–24.

Historia

89

who aspired to royal power, which they achieved in the 390s as reflected in Claudian. Ewig 2009, 143–4 argues for a Heerkönigtum (with reference to Demandt 1980, 271): these individuals were local commanders who acquired general following, and ultimately a higher status, due to success. Kehne 2001, 272 takes the various references to mean promotion from dux to subregulus to rex. By contrast, Reichert and Castritius 1998 imply that Sunno, Marcomer, and Genobaudes were already kings of a Frankish tribe and thus that only the appellation used in Roman sources changes. If we assume that Sulpicius’ vocabulary is accurate, it implies that he thought that the Franks had kings, just as Ammianus did, but also that there was a group of people close, but subordinated, to such kings. Regalis means ‘being one of the king’s men’, whilst subregulus implies the existence of greater kings (see below p. 92 n. 55 and p. 96 n. 69). In this understanding, Sunno, Marcomer, and Genobaudes were lower-ranking leaders of groups or subordinates to higher-ranking kings, who were the commanders of Frankish groups that raided the Empire in 388. The label subreguli implies that they were leaders of smaller groups themselves, but also that there were more important Frankish kings. If Claudian is correct in claiming that the Romans succeeded in imposing kings on the Franks, they may have assumed higher royal status when the Romans struck a treaty with them. The Romans may have helped them to replace Frankish kings that had traditionally ranked higher than Sunno and Marcomer. The implication of this is that the Franks did not consist of a series of equally ranked smaller groups, all led by individuals of equal status, but that there was a hierarchy among these groups, with some leaders ranking higher than others, even if each leader commanded his own group. This is, in fact, the image Ammianus Marcellinus gives of the Alamanni (16.12.23) and Quadi (17.12.21); see also the Goths in Claude 1971, 10–36. At some point, the Franks became unified under a single king, like Clovis, but the end of the fourth century is clearly too early for that. The only alternative to this reconstruction is that Sulpicius used his terms loosely and that the use of dux, subregulus, and regalis was intended to emphasize the petty nature of these leaders, who then were indeed kings of smaller groups (emphasizing again that we do not know what titles the Franks gave to their own leaders). Claudian then need not say more than that the Romans succeeded in imposing their choice of leaders on some of the Franks. This position precludes us from seeing any evolution at all in Frankish ruling structures at the end of the fourth century. If the term dux has a specific meaning here, it probably means that the three leaders of the Franks had been recognized as military commanders

90

Sulpicius Alexander

of the raid on imperial territory, thus temporarily achieving a more important command than usual. There is support for this idea in F7, where Marcomer seems to be a leader of the Ampsivarii. F2: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch-Levison 1951, 54.8–9) In quarto vero libro, cum de interfectione Victuris, fili Maximi tyranni, narraret, ait: Eo tempore Carietto et Sirus in locum Nanneni subrogati, in Germania cum exercitu opposito Francis diversabantur.

But in the fourth book, when he narrates the execution of Victor,46 the son of the usurper Maximus, he says: at that time Carietto and Sirus,47 replacing Nannenus, were stationed with their army in Germania to oppose the Franks. Commentary The contemporaneity with the death of Victor locates this replacement in the summer or autumn of 388.48 The replacement was obviously due to the fact that Nannenus and Quintinus had been Maximus’ men, but it is also clear that after the defeat of Quintinus, the Franks were perceived to be enough of a threat to require an army to be stationed at the frontier. The death of Maximus and that of his son were narrated in two different books, allowing for the possibility that book 3 ended with the death of Maximus (see p. 84). F3: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch-Levison 1951, 54.10–13) Et post pauca, cum Franci de Germania praedas tulissent, adiecit: Nihil Arbogastis differe volens, commonet Caesarem poenas debetas a Francis 46

PLRE I, 961 (14), but note that Lafaurie 1992 shows that Victor was first made Caesar and then Augustus. Victor was executed in 388, after his father, who died on 22 July 388. 47 This Charietto is only attested here (PLRE I, 200 (2); Waas 1965, 96), and is not to be confused with the more famous one killed in 365 (Charietto 1). Sirus (PLRE I, 845) is also only attested here. PLRE suggests that both were magistri militum, but if Demandt 1970, 606–7 is right that Quintinus was magister peditum and Nannenus magister equitum per Gallias (see above p. 86 n. 32), then Charietto and Sirus may have assumed the same positions. 48 Zöllner 1970, 23 dates it to 389.

Historia

91

exigendas, nisi universa, quae superiore anno caesis legionibus diripuerant, confestim restituerent auctorisque belli traderent, in quos violatae pacis perfidia poneretur.

And after a while, when the Franks had brought plunder from Germania, he added: Arbogast,49 who did not want to delay anything, encouraged Caesar to enact the punishments that the Franks deserved, unless they immediately returned everything they had stolen from the slain legions the previous year and handed over those responsible for the war, who would be charged with the treasonous violation of the peace. Commentary This episode is clearly situated in the year 389, the year after the defeat of Quintinus. This shows, incidentally, that Gregory’s indication post pauca is not a guide to go by: there must be at least half a year between the events narrated here in F3 (at the earliest, spring 389) and the ones of F1–2 (summer of 388). If one wishes to salvage Gregory’s precision, one has to accept that Sulpicius narrated the events of autumn–spring 388 at a very high speed or included a very small number of them and thus that there were few chapters between F2 and F3.50 This fragment also shows that the Frankish raids had violated a peace treaty that had been concluded at some point before 388. Franks are last attested as having raided Gaul in 368, which thus is the terminus post quem for such a treaty.51 Judging by this fragment, Valentinian II’s response to 49

Arbogast, magister militum of Valentinian II and the usurper Eugenius (388–94): Waas 1965, 83–7; PLRE I, 95–7. Arbogast was a Frank and nephew of Ricomer, the strongman at the court of Theodosius I. He entered Roman service and was proclaimed magister militum praesentalis in 387/8 by the army, on the death of his predecessor, Bauto. This was contrary to the wishes of Valentinian II, who nevertheless was forced to recognize Arbogast in his position. Arbogast’s independent attitude led to serious tensions (cf. F5 below; Zosimus, New history 4.53). See further the commentary on F6. 50 The alternative, that Sulpicius grouped the narration of events that happened in the same location, is ruled out by F1 and F2, which attest to the fact that the deaths of Maximus and Victor were narrated close to the dealings with the Franks. 51 Ammianus Marcellinus 27.8.5. There was a major expedition against the neighbouring Alamanni in 378 (Ammianus 31.10) and another one in 383 (Socrates, Ecclesiastical history 5.6.2, 5.11.2; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 7.2.1, 7.4.1–2, 7.13.1); cf. Drinkwater 2007 passim. F7 mentions treaties with the Franks and the Alamanni, so it is conceivable that Roman action against the Alamanni may have affected the Franks, too.

92

Sulpicius Alexander

the catastrophe of 388 must have been measured: clearly no immediate reprisals were planned. The emperor may have thought the elimination of the remnants of support for Maximus to be a more urgent task. This and the following fragments imply that Arbogast was the driving force behind the dealings with the Franks. This may not have been more than sound military strategy,52 but the fact that Arbogast was a Frank himself did draw the attention of Sulpicius (cf. below F6), who suggested that this was a factor in his dogged pursuit of the Franks. At any rate, the fact that such a strategy was possible and that the Empire was able to replace the troops of Quintinus implies that there was a strong army in Gaul at this point.53 F4: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch-Levison 1951, 54.13–15) Haec acta, cum duces essent, retulit; et deinceps ait: Post dies pauculos, Marcomere et Sunnone Francorum regalibus transacto cursim conloquio imperatisque ex more obsidibus, ad hiemandum Treverus concessit. Cum autem eos regales vocet, nescimus, utrum reges fuerint, an in vices tenuerunt regnum.

He recounts that these things happened when there were commanders (duces); and then he says: after a few days, when a brief meeting54 was conducted with Marcomer and Sunno, the royal men of the Franks,55 and when, according to custom, hostages had been demanded, he56 retired into the winter quarters at Trier. But although he calls them royal, we do not know whether they were kings, or whether they held power alternately. 52

This is also implied by the praise given by Claudian, On the consulship of Stilicho 1.239–45 to Stilicho for finally dealing with the Frankish threat. 53 Elton 1992. 54 Paulinus, Life of Ambrose 30.1 mentions, in broad terms, a victory of Arbogast over part of the Franks and a treaty with others. He associates it with a meeting. 55 Regalis is normally used as an adjective. Its substantive use occurs elsewhere in Gregory (Histories 5.49, p. 259.16), where it means ‘the king’s men’. In Cassiodorus, Tripartite history 7.20, in regalibus militans translates πάλαι μὲν ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις ἐστρατεύετο (Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 6.9.3, i.e. he served in the imperial bureaucracy). In Ammianus Marcellinus 27.10.1 the term also means ‘king’s men’. If the term was used by Sulpicius, it implies that Marcomer and Sunno served the kings, but were not kings themselves. At the end of the fragment, Gregory allows for the possibility that this word is a synonym for rex, but this would contravene normal usage. 56 Presumably Arbogast.

Historia

93

Commentary On the likely assumption that Gregory presents the fragments in chronological order, this episode took place after F3 (campaign of 389) and before F5 (second half of 391/early 392). The winter referred to may thus be that of 389–90, 390–1, or even 391–2. We do not know enough about Arbogast’s movements to decide among these options. In F6 he travels to Cologne in winter, departing from either Trier or Vienne. F5 presupposes that Arbogast is absent or, at least, could be absent, so we do not need to suppose that he was constantly at court throughout 391/2 or indeed earlier. That F3 does not imply that Arbogast himself took the field against the Franks, but that he pushed Valentinian to issue threats, might argue for a date later than 389–90. But obviously we do not know what happened after F3. F5: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch-Levison 1951, 54.17–55.3) Idem tamen scriptor, cum necessitates Valentiniani Augusti comme­ morat, haec adiungit: Dum diversa in Oriente per Thracias geruntur, in Gallia status publicus perturbabatur. Clauso apud Viennam palatii ­ae­dibus principe Valentiniano paene infra privati modum redacto, militaris rei cura Francis satellitibus tradita, civilia quoque officia transgressa in coniurationem Arbogastis; nullusque ex omnibus sacramentis militiae obstrictis repperiebatur, qui familiari principis sermoni aut iussis obsequi auderet.

But the same writer, when mentioning the misfortunes of Valentinianus Augustus, adds the following: While in the East various things57 were going on in Thrace,58 in Gaul public life was disrupted. The emperor Valentinian

57

Hansen 1983, 90 suggests that Gregory changed Sulpicius’ haec (‘these things’) into diversa (‘various things’), implying that this fragment came after events in the East. Even if Hansen’s conjecture is incorrect, the conclusion still seems right: Sulpicius narrated events that happened in Thrace. 58 This refers to the presence of Goths there, who continued to cause problems until 392. In late 391, the magister equitum Promotus (PLRE I, 750) was killed in an engagement with ‘barbarians’ in Thrace (Zosimus, New history 4.51.1–3; Claudian, On the consulate of Stilicho 1.94–6, 102–3, Against Rufinus 1.316–17).

94

Sulpicius Alexander

was trapped59 near Vienne in the palace building, nearly reduced to less than the position of a private person, the control of military affairs was entrusted to Frankish retainers, and the civil tasks transferred to the allies of Arbogast;60 and there was no one found among all those bound by their oath of loyalty,61 who dared to obey the words or the orders of the emperor. Commentary Theodosius I had remained in Italy after the defeat of the usurper Maximus in 388, whilst Valentinian II resided in Vienne. In the summer of 391 Theodosius marched East again, which seems to have removed the check on Arbogast. Arbogast had assumed the post of magister militum in 388 on the death of Bauto, apparently against the wishes of Valentinian.62 Valentinian tried to depose him, but Arbogast, sure of the support of the soldiers, disregarded the order.63 At one point, Ambrose demanded that the emperor lead the army in person against invading barbarians in Pannonia, but Arbogast refused to let the emperor go.64 The current fragment is in line with other sources in emphasizing that it was Arbogast’s hold on the army that ensured his position,65 but it also shows that civil offices were put under control of his followers. Valentinian II died on 15 May

59

Stroheker 1970b links the idea of Valentinian being trapped in Vienne to other passages mentioning a princeps clausus (Historia Augusta, Life of Aurelian 43.4, Life of Alexander Severus 66.3; Panegyrici Latini 2(12).21.3; Sidonius Apollinaris, Panegyric of Majorian 358–9), but the meaning here seems different. Valentinian is trapped in Vienne, but he is not closed off from society. Moreover, many of the other passages signal a positive quality, whilst Valentinian’s condition here is connoted negatively. On the idea of the princeps clausus, see also Chastagnol 1985. 60 Szidat 2010, 265 interprets this to mean that civil office-holders crossed to the side of Arbogast, but he takes it wrongly to refer to events after the death of Valentinian II. 61 To the emperor, as civil servants. 62 Zosimus, New history 4.53.1. 63 Zosimus, New history 4.53.2–3. 64 Ambrose, On the death of Valentinian 2, 23, 24, and 27. 65 James 1988, 43; Waas 1965, 84. Paschoud 2003, 453–4 emphasizes that Theodosius did not respond to Valentinian’s appeals for help according to Zosimus, New history 4.53.3 and John of Antioch, Chronological history F280 Roberto. He concludes from this that Arbogast did not act entirely against the wishes of Theodosius. Arbogast does indeed seem to have been appointed as a check against Valentinian (Eunapius, History F 58.1 Blockley). Szidat 2010, 265 emphasizes that Arbogast did not intend to break with Theodosius. McLynn 1994, 342 argues that it was the strategy of Theodosius I to ‘emasculate’ Valentinian II, by putting him under the control of Arbogast, with the ultimate aim of gaining the upper hand. This would then explain why Arbogast could display a lack of deference towards Valentinian.

Historia

95

392, having either committed suicide66 or been murdered by Arbogast.67 The tensions this generated with Theodosius resulted in Arbogast raising Eugenius as emperor (see F7). The fragment stands out because it does not talk about Frankish rulers, unless Gregory mistook the reference to Francis satellitibus to have relevance to his query. This fragment also implies that Sulpicius Alexander narrated or at least alluded to events in the East.68 F6: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch-Levison 1951, 55.3–10) Dehinc refert: Eodem anno Arbogastis Sunnonem et Marcomere subre­ gulos Francorum gentilibus odiis insectans, Agrepinam regentem maxime hieme petiit, gnarus toto omnes Frantiae recessus penetrandus ­urendusque, cum decursis foliis nudae atque arentes silvae insidiantes occulere non possent. Collicto ergo exercitu, transgressus Rhenum, Bricteros ripae proximos, pagum etiam quem Chamavi incolunt depopulatus est, nullo umquam occursante, nisi quod pauci ex Ampsivariis et Catthis Marcomere duce in ulterioribus collium iugis apparuere.

Then he proceeds: in the same year, Arbogast, pursuing Sunno and Marcomer, the kinglets69 of the Franks, with a tribal hatred,70 went to Cologne in the middle of the winter, knowing for sure that all the Frankish refuges could be penetrated and burned down because the forests, bare once all the leaves had fallen and dried out, could no longer conceal those 66

The possibility is raised in Rufinus, Ecclesiastical history 11.31; Augustine, The city of God 5.26; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 7.22.2. Most sources know of the fact that the death was at least officially presented by Arbogast as a suicide. Matthews 1975, 238; Croke 1976; McLynn 1994, 336; Errington 2006, 38 defend this as the true version; for criticism, see Paschoud 2003, 456–7. See further McEvoy 2013, 95–9. 67 Epitome de Caesaribus 48.7; Orosius, Histories 7.35.10; Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical history 11.1; Socrates, Ecclesiastical history 5.25; Zosimus, New history 4.54.3; John of Antioch, Chronological history F 280 Roberto. Szidat 2012 shows that the versions of Zosimus and John of Antioch are unreliable. 68 Hansen 1983, 89. 69 The term subregulus is used by Ammianus Marcellinus to describe lesser leaders, of a lower status than proper kings, but rulers of their own groups (Ammianus 17.12.21 regarding the Quadi; cf. 17.12.11 for the Sarmatians). Jordanes designates subordinated kings as reguli (‘kinglets’: Getica 135, 199, 234, 249). Subregulus suggests an even greater level of subordination. Fanning 2011 shows that in Latin regulus implies the presence of other kings of equal status. 70 Paulinus, Life of Ambrose 30.1 also remarks on Arbogast’s animosity towards his own people.

96

Sulpicius Alexander

hiding in them. He therefore raised an army, crossed the Rhine, destroyed the lands of the Bricteri71 closest to the river and also the land inhabited by the Chamavi72, with no opposition, except that a few Ampsivarii73 and Catthii74 led by Marcomer75 appeared on the farther ridges of the hills. Commentary As nothing in F5 relates to the appellation of the Frankish leaders, it may well be that F6 immediately followed F5 in Sulpicius. Dehinc refert, which is the only phrase separating the two fragments, would then have been inserted by Gregory to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that now Sulpicius will talk about Frankish leaders again. If this is correct, then F5 would provide a firm date for the event described in F6, namely the winter of 391/2.76 A later date, 392/3, has been proposed77 but is implausible. In 392/3 Arbogast had raised Eugenius to the throne (August 392), and F7 indicates that in the winter of 392/3 Arbogast marched with the usurper’s army to make a show of strength on the Rhine frontier before turning to Italy. The struggle of Arbogast with Sunno and Marcomer should predate that expedition. Thus, Arbogast’s conflict with Sunno and Marcomer lasted from 388 until 393. This fragment offers the clearest indication of a rather negative characterization of Arbogast, whose barbarian nature is emphasized. Sulpicius 71

That is, the Bructeri. The Bructeri are attested in classical geography (Strabo, Geography 7.1.3; Tacitus, Germania 33) and located between the Rhine and the Westerwald (the Bonn-Koblenz region). In the fourth century, the Bructeri are regarded as Franks: see Panegyrici Latini 4(10).18.1: Nonn 2010, 20–3. 72 A people attested in Tacitus and classed on the Tabula Peutingeriana as Franks: Nonn 2010, 19–20. The Chamavi are often located north of the Rhine (in the modern Netherlands), but this passage implies that they are to be located closer to the Bructeri. 73 Possibly already mentioned by Strabo (Geography 7.1.3) and Tacitus (Annals 13.55): Nonn 2010, 23–4. This passage suggests that they lived close to the Bructeri and Chamavi, but somewhat further from the Rhine. 74 Chattuarioi are mentioned by Strabo (Geography 7.1.3; cf. Pliny the Elder, Natural history 4.100). The Chatti, located in Hessen, were long-standing enemies of Rome and were distinguished by the Romans from the Franks (cf. Laterculus Veronensis 13). They appear here allied with the Franks. They tended to be located near Xanten: Nonn 2010, 24–5. 75 If the Ampsivarii were reckoned among the Franks, the Chatti were not. Earlier (F1, F4) Marcomer appears as a leader of the Franks in general. Marcomer may have been recognized as leader by other Frankish groups earlier on, giving rise to his description by Sulpicius as a leader or ‘kinglet’ of the Franks, and the current fragment would then reflect his origin among the Ampsivarii or the Chatti. Marcomer would have then been reduced to a much smaller following by the expedition of Arbogast. Alternatively, Marcomer may have lost his leadership among his original group and was now relying on allies among the Ampsivarii and Chatti. As the fragment suggests that the Franks were caught unaware, the more likely interpretation is that Marcomer was spending the winter among his direct followers. 76 James 1988, 52–4. 77 Zöllner 1970, 24.

Historia

97

Alexander was loyal to the legitimate emperor, and Arbogast, as the cause of a usurpation, was unlikely to be depicted in a positive light in Roman historiography. Yet authors who shared Arbogast’s paganism did highlight some of his positive attributes.78 F7: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch-Levison 1951, 55.11–14) Iterum hic relictis tam ducibus quam regalibus, aperte Francos regem habere designat, huiusque nomen praetermissum, ait: Dehinc Eugenius tyrannus, suscepto expeticionale procincto, Rheni limitem petit, ut, cum Alamannorum et Francorum regibus vetustis foederibus ex more initis, inmensum ea tempestate exercitum gentibus feris ostentaret. Haec supra­ scriptus historiograffus de Francis exseruit.

Then again, without mentioning either commanders (duces)79 or royal men80, he openly states that the Franks had a king, but without giving his name, and he says: Then the usurper Eugenius, having raised an expeditionary force, went to the border of the Rhine, so that, after he had renewed the ancient treaties with the kings of the Alamanni81 and the Franks82 according to custom, he could show to the savage peoples an army that was enormous for that time. These things the aforementioned historian reveals about the Franks. Commentary Eugenius was proclaimed emperor in Gaul by Arbogast on 22 August 392, and in early 393 they left for Italy.83 Before doing so, they renewed the

78

Eunapius, History F58.1 Blockley; Zosimus, New history 4.33, 4.53.1. For the ambivalence of this term, see above p. 88. 80 See F4. 81 The last conflict between Rome and the Alamanni is dated to 383, when Gratian campaigned against them (Socrates, Ecclesiastical history 5.6.2, 5.11.2; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 7.2.1, 7.4.1–2, 7.13.1). 82 Orosius, Histories 7.35.11–12 records that Franks and ‘Gauls’ served Eugenius. The reference here is to the Franks on the other side of the Rhine. On the Frankish presence there, see Frigeridus (FHistLA 10). 83 On the usurpation of Eugenius, see PLRE I, 293 (6); Croke 1976; Szidat 1979; Urban 1999, 112; Errington 2006, 38–41; Mitchell 2007, 88–9; Salzman 2010; Szidat 2010, 265, arguing that Arbogast only raised Eugenius when Theodosius I blamed him for the death of Valentinian II. 79

98

Sulpicius Alexander

treaties with the Alamanni and Franks.84 The accession of a new emperor probably implied the need for the renewal of older agreements.85 It is also clear that Eugenius sought to protect his rear before marching south. The expression inmensum ea tempestate exercitum suggests that Sulpicius Alexander was writing sometime after these events. Other sources addressing Eugenius do not comment on the unusual size of his army.86 If these are the words of Sulpicius and not of Gregory, they argue against the idea that Sulpicius wrote shortly after Eugenius’ usurpation,87 even if one cannot precisely quantify the time elapsed between these events and Sulpicius’ composition. 84

Zöllner 1970, 24; Drinkwater 2007, 315–16. Drinkwater 2007, 272. For the treaties, see e.g. Ammianus Marcellinus 31.10.1–2 (broken in 377), 28.2.5–9, 30.3.4–7. 86 Claudian, Panegyric for Probinus and Olybrius 103–12, Panegyric for the third consulate of Honorius 65–105; Ambrose, On Psalm 36 25, On the death of Theodosius 23; Rufinus, Ecclesiastical history 11.32–3; Orosius, Histories 7.35.11–21, contradicts himself in the same passage by stating first that Eugenius had more soldiers than Theodosius and then that he had fewer; Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical history 11.2; Socrates, Ecclesiastical history 5.25; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 7.24.3–7; Theodoret, Ecclesiastical history 5.24; Zosimus, New history 4.58; John of Antioch, Chronological history F280 Roberto. 87 In contemporary historians ea tempestate is e.g. used by Orosius for the more distant past before the birth of Christ (e.g. Histories 2.15.5, 5.8.1), by Rufinus, writing in the early fifth century, for the events of 373 (Ecclesiastical history 11.3), and by Sulpicius Severus for the middle of the fourth century (Chronica 2.50.4). Rufinus and Sulpicius were writing in 403. 85

10

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus Histories

The name of Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus1 indicates that he was a Christian (Renatus), whereas his two other names are good late Roman names, which occur elsewhere in late antique sources, most prominently in Ammianus Marcellinus, where they are attached to two fourth-century Roman commanders.2 It is sometimes stated that ‘Frigeridus’ reveals a barbarian origin.3 Given the strength of social assimilation in the Later Roman Empire, however, this claim carries little weight.4 All fragments derive from the Histories of Gregory of Tours (which end in 584).5 Gregory refers to Frigeridus’ work as Historiae (F6), which we may presume to be a title. Extant fragments cover the years from 4106 until 425,7 but F6 implies that Frigeridus covered much more of the life of Aetius (d. 454), for he states that he will narrate many of his deeds and praise him for them in due course. This renders invalid the suggestion of G. Zecchini that Frigeridus only narrated events up to 425 and wrote shortly

1

Monod 1874, 84; Seeck 1910; Buchner 1955, xv–xvi; Stroheker 1970a, 282–3; PLRE II, 485–6; Castritius 2003; Lotter 2003, 10 n. 23, arguing that the name is a form of Fridericus. The manuscripts spell it Frigiretus, Frigiridus, and Frigeridus: see Krusch and Levison 1951, 55 l. 15. 2 Ammianus Marcellinus 31.7.1–3, 31.9.1: PLRE I, 373–4 and 749; Waas 1965, 98–9. There is no reason to identify the historian with any other Frigeridus (pace Oldoni 1972, 671–2). Castritius 2003 argues that the historian was named after the commanders Frigeridus (PLRE I, 373–4) and Profuturus (PLRE I, 749 (2)), without, however, assuming a family link. 3 Zecchini 1983, 84; 1993, 247; Paschoud 1997, 144. 4 See Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 4.17 on the Romanness of Arbogast. There is nothing that reveals Frankish rather than Roman sympathies in Flavius Merobaudes, also a bearer of a Frankish name: see Clover 1971. 5 Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.8–9. See Reimitz 2015a, 52–3 for the context in Gregory. 6 See the discussion of the date of F1. 7 Girotti 2017, 187, 195 seems to think that the fragments only run until 422. She speculates that Frigeridus shared a source with Olympiodorus of Thebes and sees Frigeridus as a likely source for Sidonius Apollinaris (with reference to F4 and Sidonius Apollinaris, Panegyric of Avitus 207). There is, in fact, no evidence for such a suggestion: there is no contact between the two passages, and they do not mention the same event. Even if they did, this would not amount to use of a same source: events get reported by different sources.

99

100

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

afterwards.8 How much more Frigeridus covered is uncertain: we suggest below that he must at least have covered a good part of the 430s, as well. It is even possible, though beyond proof, that Frigeridus wrote after Aetius’ death in 454.9 It is equally uncertain when he started. Because Gregory uses Frigeridus as well as Sulpicius Alexander (see above FHistLA 9), it has been assumed that there is a relationship between the two works,10 in particular that Frigeridus continued Sulpicius Alexander. In this hypothesis, Sulpicius Alexander discussed events up to 395, when Frigeridus took over.11 Yet the fact that Gregory cites them together does not prove that both histories belong together. Moreover, it is fairly rare in late antique secular historiography for historians to write an explicit sequel to a predecessor. In Latin, Ammianus Marcellinus’ continuation of the Historiae of Tacitus is the only extant example. In Greek, if Eunapius continued Dexippus, Olympiodorus, Priscus, and Malchus succeed each other but there is no clear evidence for explicit continuation. Only Agathias would continue Procopius, starting a chain added to by Menander Protector and Theophylact Simocatta. Though continuation of Sulpicius Alexander by Frigeridus is a possibility, there is nothing that specifically supports such a hypothesis. Frigeridus’ work contained at least twelve books (F6). In late Latin historiography this is the highest number after Ammianus Marcellinus, inviting the suggestion that Frigeridus’ history had a density of coverage similar to Ammianus’.12 Yet this presupposes that a book by Frigeridus was similar to the books of Ammianus. In fact, the Breviarium of Eutropius, which covers the history of Rome from 753 BC until AD 364, also has ten books, much slimmer than those of Ammianus. The Ecclesiastical history of Rufinus covers history from Christ until AD 395 in eleven books,

8

Zecchini 1993, 245–6; 2003, 334. For a prudent position, see Stroheker 1970a, 250; Paschoud 1997, 146. Oldoni 1972, 671 proposes 460 as the end date of the history, for which there is no evidence. Oldoni 1981, liii dates the history after 451. 10 Oldoni 1972, 671 argues that the number of books mentioned in F6 was the total number of books for Sulpicius Alexander and Frigeridus combined, assuming that they were in a single manuscript and continued each other (cf. Oldoni 1981, liv). This is extremely unlikely. Oldoni 1981, liii also suggests Frigeridus was from the region of Clermont-Ferrand, basing this on the interest the fragments show in that region. But given the highly biased selection of the fragments made by Gregory, this is a specious conclusion. 11 Seeck 1910; Paschoud 1997 and 1998a. By contrast, Zecchini 1993, 245 suggests a starting point in 406, the real date of F1. 12 Paschoud 1997, 146, noting that Ammianus Marcellinus narrates on average one and a half years per extant book. Another point of comparison would be Olympiodorus of Thebes, who covers eighteen years in twenty-two books. 9



Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

101

Orosius all of history until 417 in seven, and Fulgentius all of history until the fourth century in fourteen. We should, then, remain open to the possibility that Frigeridus’ history was nothing like that of Ammianus. Against this suggestion it may be asked: if Frigeridus covered more ground, why does Gregory only cite material about the Franks between the years 410 and 425? Does this not imply that he covered only these years? Yet the assumption that Gregory had thoroughly combed through both works and reported everything he found in relation to the Franks is unlikely. Indeed, there is direct proof that Gregory did not cite or find everything in relation to the Franks in his sources. At the end of Histories 2.9,13 he quotes Orosius on the Franks,14 suggesting that what he reports is all Orosius says about them. But he missed three other occurrences in Orosius.15 In addition, if one attributes an Ammianus-like density to Sulpicius Alexander and Frigeridus, then, given the Franks’ role in the history of the fourth and early fifth century, they are likely to have said much more about the Franks than Gregory cites.16 Indeed, as it is likely that Frigeridus covered the 430s, he must have written about the dealings of Aetius with the Franks. We cannot, in other words, presume Gregory to be representative even of the Frankish material in these histories. Assessment of Frigiderus’ coverage is rendered difficult by our uncertainty as to the question whether the fragments represent actual quotations or summaries by Gregory. If the way that Gregory marks off the fragments suggests that he is giving the ipsissima verba of Frigeridus, the language of the fragments and some of the syntactical infelicities imply that we are dealing with summaries.17 Only F6, the longest fragment, may be close to the original. This would help to explain why some fragments (F2–4) are tantalizingly vague regarding the course of events they describe (see commentary ad loc.). One wonders if Gregory is also responsible for another element of vagueness in the fragments, namely that of chronology. Two fragments simply juxtapose two contemporary events (F4–5), without giving a clue as to their relative chronology. The chronology of F1 is disputed, and Gregory may have been accidentally situated at the crossing of the Rhine in 410 because he misunderstood the narrative context in 13

Krusch and Levison 1951, 57.7–9. Orosius, Histories 7.40.3. Orosius, Histories 7.25.3, 7.32.10, 7.35.12. 16 Ammianus Marcellinus refers to the Franks in ten different chapters (15.5.11, 16, 33; 16.3.2; 17.2.1, 4; 17.8.2; 20.10.2; 21.5.3; 22.5.4; 27.8.5; 30.3.7; 31.10.6), almost as often as Sulpicius (7) and Frigeridus (5, F6 does not refer to the Franks) combined, according to Gregory of Tours. 17 Wood 1992, 13; Paschoud 1997, 147. 14 15

102

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

which he found it in Frigeridus (see F1). The introduction to F6, clearly by Gregory but a summary of what he found in Frigeridus, mentions the proclamation of Valentinian III as Augustus (425) before the usurpation of John (423). Though it seems plausible to lay the blame for this at Gregory’s door, F1 may imply that Frigeridus narrated events in blocks, as did Olympiodorus (who first narrated the events leading to the sack of Rome in 410, and then returned to the usurpations since 407). This may have rendered it difficult for Gregory to get the chronology right when summarizing Frigeridus. It is impossible to determine the level of abridgement, but the quotation from Orosius mentioned above is reduced by about half. Unless one presupposes a much greater compression for the fragments of Frigeridus, this would still imply that Frigeridus did not describe events in great detail. In fact, the fragments never offer much narrative expansion. For example, F1 gives much information, but unless one assumes a very drastic abridgement, there is no room for an extensive description of the battle mentioned. Similarly, F2 is well informed about the revolt of Gerontius and its effect on the usurper Constantine (410), but the sequence of events is very quick, even if one assumes that Gregory summarized a text that was twice as long. Hence, we either have to assume that Gregory summarized Frigeridus heavily (like the reduction of the twenty-two books of Olympiodorus down to a couple of pages by Photius18) or that Frigeridus narrated events rapidly but not at length. Gregory’s emphasis on the fact that he is quoting19 lends more credence to the second option. This would, in turn, support the idea that in terms of coverage Frigeridus looked more like Orosius than Ammianus Marcellinus. All fragments offer us unique and good evidence, with only one fragment (F3) almost certainly being mistaken. F2 confirms the Olympiodorustradition20 as preserved by Photius and Sozomen, against the different version found in Zosimus, who also relied on Olympiodorus. It has been suggested that Frigeridus was a source for Olympiodorus,21 which can hardly be true, as the former in all likelihood published his history 18

Photius, Bibliotheca Cod. 80. F1: ait; F2: ita disseruit; F3: ita dicit; F4: adiungit; F5: refert; F6: adiecit. Olympiodorus of Thebes wrote a history covering the years 407–25, which largely focuses on events in the West. The work is lost but preserved in a summary by Photius. It was used by Sozomen and Zosimus, and presumably also Philostorgius. See CHAP s.v. 21 Paschoud 1998a, 316. 19

20

Historiae

103

before Frigeridus.22 One might entertain the possibility that Frigeridus used Olympiodorus. There are, however, also some differences between Frigeridus and the Olympiodorus-tradition (see F2 and F3). One may wish to speculate about shared sources,23 but it is safer to assume that they agree because they both offer a roughly correct or a standard account of events. Gregory selected the fragments because they mentioned the Franks. Even with this biased selection,24 one notices that all fragments relate to emperors, Imperial activity, usurpers, and campaigns against barbarian invaders. The perspective is clearly Imperial: the usurper Constantine is derided as a glutton (F2), whereas Aetius, servant of the emperor, receives fulsome praise (F6). Unlike Olympiodorus, Frigeridus seems intent on offering a positive image of Honorius (F3). Usurpers appear as never fully in control and are allied with barbarian groups.25 Geographically, there is an interest in Italy (F1–2, F6), Spain (F2, F5), and Gaul (F1–4) – the preponderance of the latter being due to Gregory’s selection. There is no trace of an interest in Eastern affairs. On the basis of extant evidence, then, Frigeridus’ Historiae appears to have been a history of the West written from an Imperial perspective. The narrative was well informed and progressed at a fast pace, suggesting that comparisons with Ammianus Marcellinus are misleading.

Historiae F1: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch and Levison 1951, 55.15–56.1) Renatus Profuturus Frigiretus, cui iam supra meminimus, cum Romam refert a Gothis captam atque subversam, ait: Interea Respendial rex Alanorum, Goare ad Romanos transgresso, de Rheno agmen suorum convertit, Wandalis Francorum bello laborantibus, Godigyselo rege absumpto, 22

Olympiodorus published his history in 425–7: cf. Van Nuffelen 2013, 130, with further references. Baldini 2004, 258–66 argued for a common source for Orosius, Symmachus the Younger (FHistLA 14), Frigeridus, and Olympiodorus. This is taking speculation too far: cf. Paschoud 1998a, 316. Mommsen 1882, xxxvi suggested that Frigeridus had used Priscus (Barnish 1992b, 39), but as the latter wrote after 474 (Blockley 1981, 50), this implies an implausibly late date for Frigeridus. 24 Wynn 1997, 71; Paschoud 1998a, 314, correcting Zecchini 1993, 245–6, 249–50, who deduced a particular focus on Gaul from the fragments. 25 This is closer to the perspective espoused by Olympiodorus and Prosper Tiro, who record the years 406–17 as a series of usurpations (Muhlberger 1981, 92; Van Nuffelen 2013; Stickler 2014). The Chronicle of 452 emphasizes the role of the barbarians and the weakness of Imperial rule (Muhlberger 1992, 32–4). 23

104

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

aciae26 viginti ferme milibus ferro peremptis, cunctis Wandalorum ad internitionem delendis, nisi Alanorum vis in tempore subvenisset.

When Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, whom we have already mentioned above, relates how Rome was captured and sacked by the Goths, he says: meanwhile, whilst Goar27 had gone over to the Romans, Respendial, king of the Alans,28 turned his army away from the Rhine as the Vandals were struggling in their war with the Franks. Indeed, after their king Godigyselus had died29 and nearly 20,000 men of the army30 had been killed by the sword, all would have been slaughtered, resulting in the extinction of the Vandals, if the Alan troops had not come to their aid in time. Commentary This is the first fragment of Frigeridus in Gregory’s Histories 2.9. It is preceded only by the portrait of Aetius in Histories 2.8 (F6 below). Paschoud 1997 lists it as F2, presumably because the sack of Rome in 410 26

Read aciei. With Respendial, Goar was one of the two kings of the Alan groups. He had apparently joined the Romans and would in 411 support the elevation of Iovinus (see Frigeridus F3): PLRE II, 514–15. One may presume Goar had offered his services to Rome in return for, at least, food and payment. Who is meant by ‘Romans’ depends on the dating of the battle between the Franks and Vandals (see the commentary): if this happened during the winter of 406/7, he may have struck a deal with Imperial authorities; if later, it must have been with the usurper Constantine. It has been assumed that the Alans under Goar were settled within the Empire (e.g. Stein 1949a, 264), but the fragment neither supports nor refutes such a conclusion: we may simply be dealing with an alliance (cf. Cesa 1994, 127 n. 22). 28 Respendial is only mentioned here (PLRE II, 940). Wynn 1997, 81 argues for the alternative reading Rex Alamannorum, but that reading is not well attested in the manuscripts. On the name, see Alemany 2000, 168. 29 Godigisel, PLRE II, 515–16. Godigisel was the leader of the Hasding Vandals. Procopius, Wars 3.2.23 preserves an alternative tradition, identifying Godigisel as the king who led the Vandals into Spain in 409. Wynn 1997, 80 argues, unconvincingly, that Frigeridus preserves the same tradition: Frigeridus clearly locates Godigisel on the Rhine. Siebigs 2010, 921 points to the late date of Procopius’ account, suggesting it relied on Eustathius of Epiphaneia. The Vandals seem to have come from Pannonia and are understood to have moved towards Raetia at this point: Šašel 1979, 127; Lotter 2003, 88, mainly based on Claudian, Gothic war 363–403. 30 The only other number we have for the Vandals is that of 80,000 for the crossing into Africa (Procopius, Wars 3.5.18; Victor of Vita 1.2), although it is not clear if that includes women and children or just men of fighting age. In this case, Frigeridus is clear: 20,000 soldiers had died, and it was a high percentage of the men of fighting age. For the invasion of Radagaisus in 405–6, we have the number of 400,000 (Zosimus, New history 5.26.3, with Paschoud 2011, 200) and 200,000 (Orosius, Histories 7.37.4). On the problems of such numbers, see Jones 1964, 194–6; Goffart 1980, 231; Modéran 2014, 59; Wijnendaele 2016, 270–1. Kulikowski 2004, 159 puts the total number of those who crossed below 100,000, Heather 2006, 198 at close to 100,000. 27

Historiae

105

happened after the beginning of the events described in his F1 (our F2), dating to 408–10. Yet F2 (below) is a continuous narrative of the downfall of the usurper Constantine, including the proclamation of the usurper Maximus in the summer of 410, roughly contemporary with the sack of Rome. F2 also shows that Frigeridus seems to have narrated events not year by year but in episodes (see also the commentary on F3 and F4), whereas situating F1 after F2 would imply that it was a sort of digression or flashback. In addition, the other fragments of Frigeridus in Histories 2.9 appear in a clear chronological order. On balance then, F1 should come before F2.31 If this is correct, the disposition of the events in Frigeridus may reveal an interesting parallel with Olympiodorus. In Photius’ summary, it is clear that Olympiodorus first narrated events related to the Goths: he starts with the last year of Stilicho (408) and his dealings with Alaric, followed by the escalation of the conflict between Honorius and Alaric in the wake of Stilicho’s death, which would lead to the sack of Rome. This part concludes with the death of Alaric in 410 (Olympiodorus F11). He then reverts to an account of the usurpations in the West since 407, which seems to pay little attention to the impact that the conflict with Alaric had on the actions of the usurper Constantine.32 The precise role of the Rhine crossing in Olympiodorus’ account remains uncertain, but Orosius blames the crossing of the Rhine on Stilicho.33 This shows how one could construct an account whereby Stilicho’s neglect of the frontiers had led to the sack of Rome. We cannot be sure if Frigeridus actually offered this causal connection, even if the disposition of his narrative renders it possible. Such a narrative would, however, provide an explanation for why Gregory found the Rhine crossing in the same context as the sack of Rome.34 This is the most-cited fragment of Frigeridus, but also one of the most problematic. To start with, the Latin is not as clear as one might wish, with its second part being made up of a series of juxtaposed ablatives absolute. 31

Cf. Wynn 1997, 86. A similar structure is observable in Sozomen (Ecclesiastical history 9.6–10, 9.11–16). Although using Olympiodorus, Zosimus intercalated the account of the usurpations in 6.2–6 and sought to reestablish their chronological order. This is an indication of Zosimus’ originality, against the idea of Zosimus as a slavish copyist of his sources (Baldini and Paschoud 2014). 33 Orosius, Histories 7.38.3–4. 34 Wynn 1997, 79 correctly observes that, when introducing the fragment with reference to the sack of Rome, Gregory gives us a place in the narrative of Frigeridus and not a date. He contradicts his own observation by using the date of the sack of Rome (410) to argue that the events narrated in the fragment actually happened in Spain, because that is where the Vandals were in 410 (Wynn 1997, 69: ‘At least part of this fragment, therefore, treats an incident which occurred not east of the Rhine but in Spain, since the Asding Vandals were there in 410.’). 32

106

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

These can express simultaneity but also causality, and we have therefore chosen to use the English ‘as’ to introduce our translation of Wandalis Francorum bello laborantibus.35 The subsequent clauses (Godigyselo rege absumpto, aciae viginti ferme milibus ferro peremptis) explain what this meant: the Vandal king had been killed and almost 20,000 men had fallen. The last clause (cunctis Wandalorum ad internitionem delendis, nisi Alanorum vis in tempore subvenisset) explains what would have happened, had the Alans not come to their aid. It is logical to presume that the Alan aid refers to the troops that Respendial is moving in the main sentence, even if this is not made explicit. It is important to note that the struggle between the Franks and Vandals is a war, not a single battle: the Vandal king Godigisel and the 20,000 men have died before the Alans can come to their aid. As the introduction to F1 shows, the fragment appeared in Frigeridus next to a description of the sack of Rome (24 August 410), and it would therefore be logical to assume that Frigeridus also dated the battle between the Vandals and Franks to 410. This date is universally rejected36 on the grounds that the Vandals, Alans, and Suebi crossed the Pyrenees in September 409, rendering such a major conflict in 410 unlikely. The war is usually understood as an episode just preceding the famous crossing of the Rhine by these three groups in the winter of 406/737 and explained with reference to Orosius, Histories 7.40.3, who mentions that the Vandals and Alans ‘crushed’ (proterunt) the Franks and then crossed the Rhine to advance towards Spain. These groups had decided to cross into the Empire after the Huns pushed them out of their Middle Danube 35

The translations of Hellmann 1911, 78 and Dalton 1927, 52 presume mere simultaneity. Wynn 1997, 85 notes that temporality and causality can be meant, but his solution implies that there is no connection apart from a temporal one between the main clause and the ablatives absolute. This generates very awkward Latin. Goffart 2006, 96 implies causality. 36 An exception is Wynn 1997, drawing attention to Procopius, Wars 3.3.33, which mentions the death of a Vandal king in battle with Germanoi in Spain. In contrast to other scholars, Wynn accepts the date but not the location of the events of F1. The critique of this position offered in Berndt 2008, 136 is ineffective (there is too little of Frigeridus left to be sure): rather, Wynn’s construction of the Latin of F1 is implausible (see the previous n.). 37 Courtois 1955, 41–2; Courcelle 1964, 81; Demougeot 1979, 430; Paschoud 1997, 144; Kulikowski 2000, 326; Janßen 2004, 202–4; Goffart 2006, 73–118; Berndt 2007, 90; Halsall 2007, 210–12; Heather 2006, 206 (Heather states that the fragments of Frigeridus include a reference to Vandal activity in Raetia c. 401/2, but he probably means Claudian, Gothic war 414–15); Merrills and Miles 2010, 35; Kouznetsov and Lebedynsky 2005, 98; Modéran and Perrin 2014, 67. The redating of the crossing to 405 by Kulikowski 2000, 328–30 has found some acceptance (Halsall 2007, 211; Delaplace 2015, 130–1), but certainly must be rejected: Birley 2005, 455–60; Berndt 2007, 85–90; Modéran and Perrin 2014, 70; Steinacher 2016, 51–2; p. 109 n. 54 below. This is now also accepted by Kulikowski himself (2007, 217 n. 37).

Historiae

107

habitation,38 or alternatively, had been attracted by the relative prosperity of the Empire and the weakened defences on the Rhine.39 This neat reconstruction is not without its problems. Our sources give various dates for the Rhine crossing: Prosper famously dates it to New Year’s Eve 406 and Zosimus records invasions of Vandals, Alans, and Suebi for 406.40 Orosius, however, dates the Rhine crossing to c. 408, two years before the sack of Rome and contemporaneous with the death of Stilicho, who is, in Orosius’ opinion, the main instigator of the invasion.41 Frigeridus seems to offer yet another date for unrest on the Rhine, that is, 410. Though these sources focus on the Rhine, Zosimus speaks of invaders who crossed the Alps. Thus, these three historians, writing within one or two decades of the events, do not offer accounts that are easily harmonized. The traditional approach is to combine all of them into a single narrative, arguing that Orosius postdated the crossing to pin the blame on Stilicho and that Frigeridus was in error or that Gregory misunderstood the narrative context in which he found the relevant fragment (see above). This is certainly possible, but one should never forget that this remains a reconstruction and not the ancient account. Alternatively, J. Drinkwater has argued that the crossing of 406/7 must have been a fairly small affair and that the group of invaders must have grown through new recruits coming into the Empire later.42 In this model, later observers may have found it hard to pinpoint a precise moment for the invasion: the winter of 406/7 then represents the start of a process that could be variously reconstructed by different historians. Yet the high number of casualties claimed in F1 would contradict the theory that the crossing was a small affair. Finally, it should be noted that the journey into Spain in September 409 did not mean that all of the Vandals or Alans had left northern Gaul.43

38

Heather 1995a; Heather 2009. Goffart 2006, 75–95; Kulikowski 2000, 326; Halsall 2007, 195–212. The claim that the defences were weakened seems implausible in the light of the current fragment: see below. 40 Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1230; Zosimus, New history 6.3.1. On this Zosimus-passage, see Paschoud 1989, 28–30, arguing that these are remnants of the force of Radagaisus, who invaded in 405. Cf. Wijnendaele 2016. 41 Orosius, Histories 7.38.3–4, 7.40.3. See also the Chronicle of 452, 52–5, the Chronicle of 511, 547; Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle 408; Cassiodorus, Chronicle 1177; Pseudo-Fredegar, Chronicle 2.60. 42 Drinkwater 1998, 271–5. See also Goffart 1980, 231–4. Generally, however, the crossing in 406/7 is supposed to have involved large groups: Heather 2009, 16; Halsall 2007, 211. 43 From Jerome, Letter 123.15 we know that the invaders of 406/7 had remained largely in the provinces Belgica I and II and Germania I until early 409: Kulikowski 2000, 332 with reference to earlier literature; Courtois 1955, 46; Heather 2006, 206–8; Rebenich 2009; Modéran and Perrin 2014, 68–70. Note the criticism of Steinacher 2016, 57 regarding attempts to reconstruct the route of the invaders from extant literary sources. 39

108

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

There still were substantial groups of Alans and Vandals in Gaul after 409 (see Frigeridus F1 and F3), for the usurper Constantine (and maybe Iovinus, too) sought to levy troops from them. There were also still Alans around the Loire region c. 451.44 This situation and the limited source material leave us, then, with three possibilities. (A) Frigeridus describes a war preceding the crossing of 406/7, when the invading Vandals clashed with the Franks, presumably those living on the Germanic side of the Rhine. Respendial was closer to the Rhine than the Vandals and moved away from it towards the Vandals in order to help them against the Franks. (B) The episode narrates a conflict in the Rhine region after 406/7, outside the Roman Empire. Zosimus states that the usurper Constantine (407–11) rendered the Rhine frontier secure.45 As Constantine held Trier by May 408,46 the event would have occurred before that date. (C) The episode reflects a conflict that took place after the crossing and when the various barbarian groups were ravaging the provinces of Belgica I and II and Germania I. There was a Frankish presence there, and they could have been used by the Romans to contain the invaders.47 The date could, therefore, be any time between 407 and 410, assuming that the usurper Constantine’s control of the territory was limited to a number of key points and cities, such as Trier. The evidence of Orosius, who talks about a defeat of the Franks before the crossing, would favour option A, but the other options cannot be entirely ruled out. Beyond the problems of dating, the fragment provides two pieces of important evidence. First, it demonstrates that the Vandals and Alans (and one may presume the Suebi, too) were distinct groups with their own leaders who also travelled and acted separately.48 This contrasts with the invasion of Radagaisus, who seems to have been the single leader of

Salvianus, On the government by God 7.12.50 and Orosius, Histories 7.40.3 suggest that the Vandals very quickly spread over the whole of Gaul. Cf. Modéran and Perrin 2014, 71–2, implying that Constantine III had to deal with these groups in Gaul from 407 until 409. 44 Jordanes, Getica 194. 45 Zosimus, New history 6.3.3. 46 Drinkwater 1998, 276. 47 Ammianus Marcellinus 15.5.11, 17.8.3; cf. Ewig 1974; Demougeot 1988, 39 and 44–9 (cf. Demougeot 1979, 433, criticized by Modéran and Perrin 2014, 68); Hummer 1998, 11–12; Périn 1998, 61; Stickler 2007, 501. 48 One notes, however, that Frigeridus does not (nor does any Roman source at this point) clearly distinguish between the two Vandal groups, the Hasdings and Silings. Goffart 2006, 96 states that the fragment implies that the Alans and not the Vandals were the leaders of the invasion. But the fragment only implies that the Alan force was intact.

Historiae

109

a ­multi-ethnic group.49 Second, the fragment offers hints at the way in which the Romans tried to deal with such events. An alliance with Goar split the Alans:50 the fragment implies that Goar originally had had the same plans as Respendial but had gone over to the Romans. It is usually presumed that the Franks resisted the Vandals at the request of the Romans. In the case of options A and B, the Franks mentioned would be those Franks living east of the Rhine: they could have simply let the Vandals move on to the Empire. In option C, resistance was put up by Franks settled in Gaul.51 Yet we cannot exclude the possibility that the Franks also fought for their own sake. Not all Franks east of the Rhine seem to have been allied with Rome in this period,52 and one can also imagine Franks resisting the Vandals because they were plundering their land. At any rate, if one takes the fragment to refer to 406/7, the success of the stratagem used to divide the Alans implies that the entry into the Empire was not a surprise, nor did it go unchecked:53 the Romans were already trying to deal with the invasion before the crossing. In this case, the usurpations of Marcus, Gratian, and Constantine in 406/7 may have been the reason why the containment policy was unsuccessful.54 The fragment is, then, more problematic and hence more interesting than scholars have assumed. If we see it as a piece of evidence for the crossing of 406/7 (option A), we need to revise existing assumptions about 49

Orosius, Histories 7.37.4–5; Chronicle of 452, 52; Zosimus, New history 5.26.3. Cf. Wolfram 2009, 202–4. Cf. Orosius, Histories 7.40.4, noting negotiations between barbarians and Constantine III. 51 The Franks are often said to have been federates (e.g. Zöllner 1970, 25; Ewig 1974, 56; Merrills and Miles 2010, 35; Janßen 2004, 202; Steinacher 2016, 50), but Kulikowski 2000, 326 n. 8 points out there is no evidence for this, cf. Modéran and Perrin 2014, 67. 52 Anton 1984, 13 argues against the idea that the Franks on the Rhine were organized in kingdoms federated with Rome, because we know the Franks raided Trier in this period: see below F4. 53 This is the impression given by Orosius, Histories 7.40.3 and followed by scholarship: e.g. Drinkwater 1998; Kulikowski 2000; Kouznetsov and Lebedynsky 2005, 98. But see Goffart 2006, 96; Heather 2009, 18. Demougeot 1979, 196; Bleckmann 1997, 561; Szidat 2010, 228–9; Modéran and Perrin 2014, 67 suppose that frontier forces were depleted (with reference to Claudian, Gothic war 414–29, 568–76). Jones 1964, 197 and Heather 2006, 246–8 emphasize their strength. 54 It is often assumed that the usurpations were a response to the invasions by barbarians (e.g. Seeck 1920, 378; Stevens 1957, 320–1; Szidat 2010, 358; Kulikowski 2000; Bleckmann 2004 and 2011b, 454). Kulikowski’s argument for an early date for the crossing (405) relies, in fact, on an assumption that needs to be questioned, namely that the usurpations of Marcus, Gratian, and Constantine were responses to the crossing of the Rhine and hence that the latter must predate these usurpations. In the Olympiodorus-tradition, only Zosimus (New history 6.3.1) sees the usurpations as a response to the invasions (cf. Orosius, Histories 7.40.3–4), but such a causality is absent in Photius (Olympiodorus F13) and Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.11.2–12.3: both clearly imply that the revolt in Britain predates the invasion (cf. Demougeot 1979, 387; Janßen 2004, 206). Zosimus may well have reordered the events to enhance his usual emphasis on the negative role of the barbarians. 50

110

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

the small scale of the groups crossing and the lack of Roman resistance, for the fragment presents evidence of the Romans trying to contain the Vandals and Alans before they crossed the Rhine. If the fragment relates to a later movement of Vandals (option B), the crossing of 406/7 was just the beginning of a series of events and the usurper Constantine is unlikely to have really pacified the Rhine frontier.55 If the episode happened inside the Empire (option C), the fragment provides evidence for the presence of substantial groups of Vandals and Alans in Gaul, possibly even after the migration of other groups to Spain in 409. On balance, option A remains the most likely, but each offers a plausible scenario. F2: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch and Levison 1951, 56.2–15) Movet nos haec causa, quod cum aliorum gentium regis nominat, cur non nominet et Francorum. Tamen cum ait, quod Constantinus, adsumpta tyrannide, Constantium filium ad se de Hispaniis venire iussisset, ita disseruit: Accito Constantinus tyrannus de Hispaniis Constante filio idemque tyranno, quo de summa rerum consultarent praesentes; quo factum est, ut Constans, instrumento aulae et coniuge sua Caesaraugustae dimissis, Gerontio intra Hispanias omnibus creditis, ad patrem continuato itinere decurreret. Qui ubi in unum venere, interiectis diebus plurimis, nullo ex Italia metu, Constantinus gulae et ventre deditus redire ad Hispanias filium monet. Qui, praemissis agminibus, dum cum patre resederet, ab Hispania nuntii commeant, a Gerontio Maximum unum e clientibus suis imperio praeditum atque in se cometatu gentium barbararum accinctum parari. Quo exterreti, Edobecco ad Germanias56 gentes praemisso, Constans et praefectus iam Decimius Rusticus ex officiorum magistro petunt Gallias, cum Francis et Alamannis omnique militum manu ad Constantinum iam iamque redituri.

What strikes us, is why, while he names the kings of the other peoples, he does not also name the king of the Franks. For, when he says that Constantinus,57 after he had usurped power, had ordered his son 55

Cesa 1994, 139–40; Drinkwater 1998, 282. Read Germanas or Germaniae. 57 Flavius Claudius Constantinus, usurper 407–11: PLRE II, 316–17 (21); Stevens 1957; Demougeot 1974 and 1979, 436–49; Ehling 1996; Wynn 1997; Drinkwater 1998; Lütkenhaus 1998, 38–51; Kulikowski 2000 and 2004, 156–66; Bleckmann 2011b; Wijnendaele 2018. 56

Historiae

111

Constantius58 to come to him from Spain, he narrates as follows: the usurper Constantinus summoned his son Constans, also a usurper, from Spain, so that they could discuss the whole situation in person. Hence Constans, leaving his court apparel and his wife in Caesaraugusta,59 with everything in Spain entrusted to Gerontius,60 hurried to his father without interrupting his journey. When they met and many days had passed without any threat from Italy, Constantinus, who was dedicated to the pleasures of his gullet and stomach, ordered his son to return to Spain. After he had sent his troops ahead, while he stayed with his father, messengers came from Spain that Gerontius had transferred Imperial power to Maximus, one of his clients,61 and that he was preparing himself to march on him with his company of barbaric peoples. Terrified by this news, after having sent Edobeccus62 ahead to the Germanic peoples, Constans and the prefect Decimius Rusticus, former magister officiorum,63 instantly went to Gaul, in order to return immediately to Constantinus with the Franks and Alamanni64 and a whole group of soldiers. 58

An error for Flavius Constans, the son of Constantine, Caesar early 408–9/10, Augustus 409/10–11: PLRE II, p. 310 (1). Constans was made Augustus in the context of the campaign in Italy of 409/10 (Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.13.1; Olympiodorus F17): pace Matthews 1975, 311 (as a response to the barbarians crossing the Pyrenees in 409). 59 Zaragoza. 60 Gerontius (d. 411) was first comes and then magister utriusque militiae of Constans (408–9), before setting up Maximus as emperor and serving as his magister militum: PLRE II, 508 (5); Drinkwater 1998, 284. 61 Maximus was usurper in 410–11: PLRE II, 744–5 (5). Maximus was a domesticus of Gerontius, that is, a personal assistant of Gerontius as comes and magister utriusque militiae (and not a member of the bodyguard, the protectores domestici, as is usually assumed: PLRE II, 744; Blockley 1983, 215 n. 40; Scharf 1992, 374; Ehling 1996, 8; Drinkwater 1998, 284; Kulikowski 2000a, 337 n. 83; Kulikowski 2000b, 124; Steinacher 2016, 376 n. 141). Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.13.1 calls him οἰκεῖος, which is a literal translation of the Latin domesticus. Photius (Olympiodorus F17) has εἰς τὴν τῶν δομεστικῶν τάξιν τελοῦντα, which could be taken to refer to the bodyguard but need not be. This ties in with the appellation of cliens in Frigeridus: cliens in later Latin has the general meaning of ‘servant’ (cf. Cassiodorus, Tripartite history 2.22.5; Gregory of Tours, Histories 9.41) and not the technical meaning of ‘client’. Photius also calls Maximus παῖς (Olympiodorus F17), which can also mean ‘servant’. For the meaning of domesticus as a personal assistant, see Orosius, Histories 7.42.11; Procopius, Wars 3.4.7; Jones 1964, 602–3. The various traditions, then, are more uniform than scholarship has assumed and imply a different meaning of domesticus. Maximus was hence a direct subordinate to Gerontius and clearly chosen to be a puppet ruler. 62 Edobichus, of Frankish origin, served as magister utriusque militiae under Constantine: PLRE II, 386. He was defeated when he came to Arles with relief troops for Constantine and murdered (411). Kulikowski 2004, 160 dates the mission of Edobich to a year after the usurpation of Maximus. 63 Decimius Rusticus was first magister officiorum (408) and then praefectus praetorio Galliarum under Constantine: PLRE II, 965 (9); Stroheker 1970a, 211. See also Hoffmann 1995, criticized by Drinkwater 1998, 289 n. 136. 64 On the Alamanni, see Drinkwater 2007, 324 for this episode. Recruitment of Alamanni had been undertaken before by Stilicho (possibly: cf. Drinkwater 2007, 322) and Eugenius (Sulpicius Alexander (FHistLA 9) F7). This recruitment is absent in Matthews 1975, 312–13. Hoffmann 1995, 563–4 shows that these peoples were probably to be situated on the left bank of the Rhine (i.e. within the Empire).

112

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus Commentary

In Gregory’s narrative this fragment immediately follows the previous one. It narrates the revolt of Gerontius against his former master, the usurper Constantine. We possess three parallel accounts. Zosimus (New history 6.4–5) and Sozomen (Ecclesiastical history 9.11–15) both go back to Olympiodorus (F13–17). Orosius (Histories 7.40.4–10, 7.42.4–5) offers some corroborating evidence, but does not offer a clear narrative. The Olympiodorus-tradition is the only more or less complete narrative of this incident, and so we shall use it in the following paragraphs as a point of comparison for Frigeridus’ version. According to Olympiodorus, the usurper Constantine was chosen by the troops of Britain as the successor of the usurper Gratian, who had, in turn, succeeded a certain Marcus.65 Gratian had been raised to the purple in 406.66 Like the precise reason for the rejection of Gratian by the troops, the exact moment of Constantine’s nomination is uncertain, but early 407 is a probable suggestion.67 Constantine soon crossed over to Gaul and advanced towards the Rhine. In 408 he advanced south towards Lyons, but was stopped by a Roman army led by Sarus.68 Nevertheless, by May 408 Constantine held Arles.69 Probably in the spring of 408, his son Constans was proclaimed Caesar and sent to Spain,70 where later in the year he defeated and captured relatives of Honorius.71 By the end of 408, Constans returned to his father in Arles with the defeated rebels who were to be executed.72 65

PLRE II, 518–19 (3), 719–20 (2). Olympiodorus F13, cf. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.11. Zosimus, New history 6.2.1 and 6.3.1 implies a date after the invasions, that is, early 407. Yet Zosimus is the only one to suggest that the invasions of winter 406/7 caused the usurpations, a link that is absent in Olympiodorus F12 and Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.11. In general, Zosimus puts a greater emphasis on the effect that the usurpations had on the disintegration of the Empire, allowing further barbarians to invade (see 6.5.2–3). This may well be a later projection, resulting from Zosimus’ virulent anti-barbarian stance, pace Matthews 1975, 308; Nelson and Nelson 1977; Ehling 1995, 2; Drinkwater 1998, 276; Kulikowski 2000, 325–8; Halsall 2007, 212. See above n. 54. 67 Stevens 1957, 320; Paschoud 1989, 20; Drinkwater 1998, 270; Kulikowski 2000, 333. For a slightly later date, spring/summer 407, see Thompson 1977; Ehling 1996. 68 Zosimus, New history 6.2.3. 69 Zosimus, New history 5.31.4; Orosius, Histories 7.40.5. For the numismatic evidence, see Drinkwater 1998, 275–9; Kulikowski 2000a, 334. Scholars have argued that Constantine advanced much more quickly to the south of France and had already established himself there in 407: Stevens 1957, 323; Paschoud 1989, 25; Cesa 1994, 129. 70 Orosius, Histories 7.40.7; Olympiodorus F13; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.11.4; Zosimus, New history 6.4.3. Cf. Paschoud 1989, 31–2; Drinkwater 1998, 279. 71 Stevens 1957, 324–5 and Matthews 1975, 309–10 argue that the relatives of Honorius revolted before Constantine took control of Spain. Drinkwater 1998, 279–80, followed by Kulikowski 2000a, 333– 4, proposes that Spain recognized Constantine early on, but that the threat to Constantine posed by Sarus encouraged the relatives of Honorius to revolt, thereby necessitating the actual presence of a Caesar in Spain. 72 Olympiodorus F13; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.12.2; Zosimus, New history 6.5.1.

66

Historiae

113

Nothing of this early history of the usurpation of Constantine III is found in Frigeridus, for the fragment focuses on the revolt of Gerontius, which happened after Constantine had established himself in Arles. The Olympiodorus-tradition contains two different versions of the usurpation of Gerontius and proclamation of Maximus. Photius and Sozomen situate it in the context of Constantine’s expedition against Italy in spring 410.73 This campaign took place after Constantine had been recognized by Honorius at the end of 408/early 409, probably when the emperor was facing Alaric’s presence in Italy.74 According to Photius, Constantine’s march on Italy aimed to strike a new and better deal with Honorius, or, according to Sozomen, to seize Italy.75 In this context, Constantine’s son Constans was proclaimed Augustus.76 When the magister equitum Allobichus, who supported Constantine at the court of Honorius, was killed,77 Constantine turned around and left Italy. Photius and Sozomen note that when Gerontius learned of Constantine’s retreat from Italy, he concluded a pact with the barbarians in Spain and marched against Constantine. In response, Constantine sent Edobichus to the Germans to raise troops and entrusted Vienne to his son Constans. Zosimus, however, places the revolt of Gerontius more than a year earlier, at the moment when Constans was sent back to Spain with the general Justus after Constantine III’s execution of Honorius’ relations (end of 408/early 409),78 and he does not mention the proclamation of Maximus. It may be possible to reconcile both versions, as Sozomen seems to know that Constans came from Spain in 410 when Constantine retreated to Arles from Italy.79 In 409 and 410 (besides the initial trip in 408), Constans would then have gone to Spain twice, once at the end of 408 or early in 409, as stated by Zosimus, and a second time in the summer of 410 as implied by Sozomen.80 Constans would have been raised to Augustus in 410, in the context of the claim made by

73

Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1243 (a. 411) dates the proclamation of Maximus to the year after the sack of Rome and Maximus’ deposition to the subsequent year. 74 Olympiodorus F17; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.12.5–13.1. For the date, see Stevens 1957, 326–8; Drinkwater 1998, 281–2; Kulikowski 2000a, 339; McEvoy 2013, 196. 75 Olympiodorus F15; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.12.4. 76 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.12.4. Matthews 1975, 311 supposes this happened in response to the entry of the barbarian peoples into Spain. 77 PLRE II, 61. 78 Zosimus, New history 6.5.2. Kulikowski 2000a, 337 follows this early chronology. 79 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.12.6: φεύγων ἐκ τῆς Ἱσπανίας. 80 Kulikowski 2000a, 337–8 argues that Constans stayed in Arles from 408 until summer 409, and thus did not travel back and forth to Spain. This may be possible, but it relies on the presupposition that the invasion of Spain was a consequence of the revolt of Gerontius, whereas the majority of our sources do not state such a causality: see below.

114

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

Constantine on Italy.81 Even so, both versions disagree on a crucial point: Zosimus dates the rebellion of Gerontius to 409, whereas Olympiodorus and Sozomen clearly imply 410 and do not know of earlier tensions. As a way out, Paschoud proposes that Gerontius was already secretly plotting against Constantine and Constans in 408 and 409, but this is hardly convincing.82 It is, then, possible that Constans travelled to Spain every year from 408 to 410, but this does not resolve the contradiction between Zosimus and the other two witnesses to Olympiodorus. The problem is complicated by the possible connection between the revolt of Gerontius and the famous entry of the Vandals, Alans, and Suebi into Spain, dated to 28 September or 12 October 409.83 Zosimus states that Gerontius incited the barbarians in Gaul against Constantine, and links this, improbably, to the Empire’s loss of Britain and Brittany. Yet he does not mention the entry of the Vandals, Alans, and Suebi into Spain.84 Sozomen states that the collapse of Constantine’s power, which occurred after the retreat from Italy, led to free entry for the barbarians, for the Pyrenees were guarded by Constantine’s troops, who, he implies, abandoned their tasks. Orosius too attributes the opening of the frontiers to Constantine’s soldiers.85 Sozomen’s chronology cannot work, as the entry into Spain by the Vandals, Alans, and Suebi (September/October 409) predates Constantine’s retreat from Italy by at least half a year (spring/summer 410). Significantly, however, none of the extant sources links the coming of the barbarians to Spain to any incitement by Gerontius, not even Zosimus, whose early date (408/9) for the revolt of Gerontius renders such a link possible. Our sources, then, do not know how the Vandals, Alans, and Suebi entered Spain and offer conflicting accounts, each of which is questionable. Yet we can affirm that the modern tendency to blame Gerontius’ revolt for the invasion of Spain is not supported by the sources. Likewise, the ancient tendency to see the invasion as being caused by the collapse of Constantine’s power fails because it inverts the chronology of the two events. It is probable that nobody knew what had really happened. 81

Paschoud 1989, 37. Paschoud 1989, 35, 37, followed and nuanced by Drinkwater 1998, 283. Cesa 1994, 136 notes divergences. 83 Hydatius, Chronicle 34 (42); Paschoud 1989, 37; Drinkwater 1998, 283; Kulikowski 2004, 161–7. 84 Zosimus, New history 6.5.2; Drinkwater 1998, 283 and Delaplace 2015, 136 suppose that Gerontius’ encouragement got out of hand. Kulikowski 2000a, 336–8 states that the entry was a direct consequence of Gerontius’ revolt. None of this is supported by the sources. For further accounts, see Arce 1982, 151–62. 85 Orosius, Histories 7.40.7–8; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.12.3 and 7. See also Jerome, Letter 123.15, who notes that in 409 Spain was threatened by the barbarians, but sees them as acting on their own initiative. 82

Historiae

115

How does Frigeridus’ version compare to the Olympiodorustradition?86 Let us start by noting that the geographical movements of Constans as represented in this fragment are not as clear as one might think. He is summoned from Spain to his father. Where is Constantine? Arles would be a logical supposition, as he was there most of the time. This may be confirmed by the fact that no threat was forthcoming from ‘Italy’ – and hence that Constantine was not himself in Italy. This would exclude a date between the end of 409 and August 410, when Constantine was campaigning in Italy.87 Yet, at the end of the fragment, Constans and Decimius Rusticus are supposed to go to Gaul to collect troops to support Constantine, which would seem to imply that Constantine was not in Gaul at that time. Frigeridus may well have meant that Constans and Rusticus were to go to northern Gaul and the Rhine frontier, which would still allow for Constantine to be in Arles. Second, the fragment is not very precise: it does not state explicitly what Constantine wished to discuss, but the reference to the absence of any threat from Italy suggests that it had to do with his dealings with the court in Ravenna, with which he had a not very cordial relationship. Frigeridus is content to deride Constantine as a glutton in order to suggest his ineptitude. In this very vague way, Frigeridus nevertheless joins the tradition we find in Olympiodorus as represented by Sozomen and Photius: the revolt of Gerontius is situated within the context of events in Italy during 410. But whereas in these sources the retreat from Italy comes first and causes the revolt of Gerontius, in Frigeridus the revolt of Gerontius comes at a time when there is only a potential but no actual threat from Italy. Third, the response to the revolt of Gerontius is virtually identical in Sozomen and Frigeridus: Edobichus is sent to collect troops from the Alamanni and Franks. Yet in contrast to Frigeridus, Sozomen notes that Constans was entrusted with the defence of Vienne.88 Fourth, there is the question of the role of the barbarians. Photius states that Gerontius struck a deal with the barbarians he was fighting in Spain and that Maximus, after the defeat of Gerontius, fled to his barbarian allies89 – presumably the 86

It has been judged both accurate (Matthews 1975, 311) and confused to the point of containing absurdities (Paschoud 1989, 37; cf. Drinkwater 1998, 289 n. 136). Demougeot 1974, 85–93 is not reliable on the source tradition. 87 Stevens 1957, 330; PLRE II, 310; Ehling 1996, 7. 88 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.13.2; Stevens 1957, 344 and Hoffmann 1995, 560 prefer this version. Note that Constantine had sent Edobichus to collect troops before, when he was besieged in Valence by Sarus (407): Zosimus, New history 6.2.3–5. 89 Olympiodorus F17. If we take Photius and Sozomen to give the correct version, Zosimus, New history 6.5.2 redated the revolt of Gerontius to 409 in order to place the blame squarely on his

116

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

barbarian groups that had crossed the Pyrenees in the autumn of 409. Frigeridus also mentions that Gerontius relied on barbarian troops. That these are described as gentes barbarae may imply that they were not federates but the peoples that had crossed into Spain.90 Finally, the reference to Constans as a usurper just like his father could be interpreted as implying that he was an Augustus at the time of these events. That Constans was in Spain suggests he was left there as an Augustus during Constantine’s campaign against Italy.91 Indeed, Sozomen states that when Constantine fled from Italy to Arles in 410, his son Constans fled to him from Spain.92 Though it makes a negative interpretation (Constans and Constantine flee), this is similar to the calmer impression given by Frigeridus, where Constans is summoned to discuss matters of state. In Frigeridus, then, Constantine appears not as someone who panics after his retreat, but as a man who fails to grasp the seriousness of the situation – hence the reference to his gluttony. Given the clear parallels with the Olympiodorus-tradition, the episode narrated in this fragment must take place after Constantine had withdrawn from Italy (c. mid-410) and wanted to discuss his options with his son. This explains the reference to a possible threat from Italy. Initially the court at Ravenna stayed quiet, leading Constantine to send Constans back to Spain. Yet at that moment Gerontius revolted. For Frigeridus also places the revolt of Gerontius after the retreat from Italy. Given the indication that much time elapsed while Constans was in Gaul,93 the revolt should be dated to the second half of 410. Gerontius was thus the first Roman enemy who presented himself to Constantine,94 soon followed by the shoulders. This runs up against Paschoud’s dogma that Zosimus slavishly copied Olympiodorus and that any divergences are to be explained by ineptitude: see p. 105 n. 32, p. 112 n. 66, p. 117 nn. 97–8. The passage in Zosimus does not imply that Gerontius invited the Vandals into Spain in order to defeat Constantine, as suggested by Modéran and Perrin 2014, 78. 90 Some sort of pact between Gerontius and the invaders has been generally assumed: cf. Modéran and Perrin 2014, 78. Cesa 1994, 137; Kulikowski 2004, 163; and Delaplace 2015, 136 argue that there is no need for it and that our sources (Hydatius, Chronicle 34 (42); Orosius, Histories 7.43.14) do not imply it. Yet Kulikowski does not mention Photius and Frigeridus. Modéran and Perrin 2014, 78 interprets Frigeridus as saying that the crossing of the Pyrenees happened at the demand of Gerontius in search of troops against Constantine. This is not what the fragment says and assumes that Gerontius was already plotting against Constantine in 409, for which there is no evidence. 91 When Constans was raised to Caesar, he was also sent to Spain: Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.11.4 and Zosimus, New history 6.4.1. 92 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.12.6. 93 Cf. F2: ‘many days had passed without any threat from Italy’. 94 It has been suggested that Gerontius sought an accommodation with Honorius (Drinkwater 1998, 284; Delaplace 2015, 135), but his decision to proclaim an emperor of his own, Maximus, argues against that idea.

Historiae

117

future emperor Constantius III, who would march from Italy. Indeed, as implied by Sozomen,95 the advance of the Italian troops to Arles happened at a moment when Constantine had sent, or planned to send, Constans to Spain to deal with Gerontius. The fragment reinforces the impression we gained from the Olympiodorus-tradition, excepting Zosimus, namely that Gerontius was left in Spain as a loyal servant and that the proclamation of Maximus and the revolt of Gerontius came as a surprise to Constantine. The fear experienced by Constantine can be understood in the light of the remark by Zosimus that Constantine dreaded being encircled.96 The revolt of Gerontius was, thus, a response to the weakness of Constantine revealed by his failure in Italy. In 411 Gerontius marched against Constantine and, after he had killed his son Constans, began to besiege him in Vienne.97 The fragment, then, makes perfect sense and concords well with the narrative of Olympiodorus as preserved in Photius and Sozomen.98 We have noticed in F1 that Frigeridus organized his material in a way similar to Olympiodorus, and this may be another indication of them sharing material. Like Olympiodorus, Frigeridus hints at the instability of the Western regions in this period and at Constantine’s shaky grip on events. This analysis also implies that we should not follow Zosimus for the chronology of this period. F3: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch and Levison 1951, 56.15–20) Item cum Constantinum obsedire scribit, ita dicit: Vixdum quartus obsi­ dionis Constantini mensis agebatur, cum repente ex ulteriore Gallia nuntii veniunt, Iovinum adsumpsisse ornatus regius et cum Burgundionibus, 95

Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.12.6. Zosimus, New history 6.4.2. 97 Olympiodorus F17; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.13.1; Orosius, Histories 7.42.4; Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1243 (a. 411). In favour of a late date for the revolt of Gerontius, see also Demougeot 1974, 116; Wynn 1997, 89–91, who is also critical of Paschoud; Lütkenhaus 1998, 44; Bleckmann 2011b, 460. The early date is the result of relying on the only continuous account we have, that of Zosimus (Drinkwater 1998, 281; Kulikowski 2000a, 334; Delaplace 2015, 135; Steinacher 2016, 66), but its deviation from the combined testimonies of the rest of the Olympiodorus-tradition and Frigeridus shows that this trust is misplaced. 98 Paschoud 1997, 315–16 has argued that Frigeridus is close to Zosimus and Sozomen. However, none of the parallels with Zosimus alleged by Paschoud are plausible. According to him, Zosimus, New history 6.4.2 could refer in a lacuna to a magister officiorum who is named by Frigeridus as Decimius Rusticus; 6.5.2 on the revolt of Gerontius would be close to Frigeridus. The former is a speculation and not a parallel, and if it were correct, the context would be different from that of Frigeridus. Regarding the second point, as we have seen, Zosimus’ account actually diverges from Sozomen and Photius, who are closer to Frigeridus. 96

118

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

Alamannis, Francis, Alanis omnique exercitu inminire obsedentibus. Ita adceleratis moris, reserata urbe, Constantinus deditur, confestimque ad Italiam directus, missis a principe obviam percussoribus, supra Mintium flumine capite truncatus est.

Also, when he writes that Constantine was besieged,99 he says this: the fourth month of the siege of Constantine had barely passed, when suddenly messengers came from distant Gaul100 that Iovinus101 had claimed the royal insignia and that he threatened the besiegers with Burgundians,102 Alamanni, Franks,103 Alans104 and a whole army. Things were therefore sped up, the city was forced open, Constantine surrendered and

99

The phrase can also mean that Constantine was laying siege: it is only towards the end of the fragment that it becomes clear that he was being besieged, as he surrenders after the taking of the city. 100 Olympiodorus F18 states that Iovinus was raised in Mundiacum in Germania Secunda. The exact location is unknown: cf. Blockley 1983, 183 n. 46; Scharf 1993, 8 n. 34; Hoffmann 1995, 561–3. Gallia ulterior in Frigeridus is archaizing, as it meant Gallia Transalpina in the time of Caesar. Given that Constantine is being besieged in Arles, the term broadly indicates northern Gaul. Its use seems common in this period: e.g. Chronicle of 452, 127. 101 Iovinus, usurper 411–13: PLRE II, 621–2 (2); Stroheker 1970a, 183–4; Demougeot 1974, 119–25; Scharf 1993; Drinkwater 1998, 288–92; Lütkenhaus 1998, 52–62; Urban 1999, 124. 102 Iovinus was raised by the Alan Goar and the Burgundian Gunthiaris. Goar held no post in the Roman army, and was called phylarchos by Olympiodorus F18. The Burgundians are described by Orosius (Histories 7.38.3) as having been stirred up by the Vandals, Alans, and Suebi, the groups that crossed into the Empire in 406/7. Pace Drinkwater 1998, 282 it cannot be excluded that there were substantial groups of Burgundians in the Empire by 411. The Burgundians are said to have settled on the Rhine in 413: Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1250. Seeck 1916 suggests this was done by Iovinus, whose death is mentioned by Prosper in the next entry for the same year. This is possible, but the order of the chronicle entries does not necessarily represent the chronology of events, and one could also envisage that the Burgundians were bought off by Iovinus’ enemies. At any rate, a Burgundian settlement can only have happened shortly before the death of Iovinus and, if awarded by Iovinus, must have been accepted by Honorius after the death of the usurper (cf. Martin 1981, 238). Demougeot 1979, 491 attributes it to Constantius III. Martin 2005 rightly argues that the Burgundians first took the territory by violence (cf. Orosius, Histories 7.32.12). 103 The Alamanni and the Franks were the groups to be recruited for Constantine by Allobichus (Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.12.3) or Constans and Decimius Rusticus (Frigeridus F2). We know from Olympiodorus F18 that Iovinus was raised by the Alans and Burgundians. It may be that Iovinus had the support of all four groups or that Frigeridus has conflated the troops raised by Decimius and those of Iovinus. Drinkwater 1998, 288 doubts whether we should see Iovinus as a mere tool of barbarian groups. 104 The Alan king Goar was one of the individuals who had raised Iovinus: Olympiodorus F18. From Jerome, Letter 123.15 we know that the invaders of 406/7 had remained in the provinces Belgica I and II and Germania I until early 409 (Kulikowski 2000a, 332). This fragment shows that there were still substantial groups of Alans in northern Gaul.

Historiae

119

was immediately brought to Italy, where he was beheaded on the river Mintius105 by executioners sent to him by the emperor.106

Commentary From May 411 onwards, Constantine was besieged in Arles by Gerontius, thus situating the events recounted by the fragment in mid to late summer 411.107 When the troops of Honorius appeared, led by the future emperor Constantius III, the troops of Gerontius went over to their side, leading to the death of Gerontius.108 Frigeridus offers a unique version of the reason for Constantine’s capitulation. According to Sozomen (Ecclesiastical history 9.14–15), who relies on Olympiodorus (cf. Olympiodorus F17), Constantine held out because he hoped for the arrival of Edobichus (cf. Frigeridus F1). Edobichus did arrive but was defeated by the Italian troops of the general and future emperor Constantius III. On learning this, Constantine abdicated and was ordained a priest. In Frigeridus, it is the usurper Iovinus who approaches Arles with Germanic troops, threatens the soldiers of Honorius, led by Constantius, and causes them to force a breakthrough, taking both the city and Constantine. Frigeridus thus omits that Constantine became a priest and, also unlike Olympiodorus (F17), he does not mention that Constantine had been promised safety but that Honorius broke his promise because Constantine had murdered his relatives in Spain.109 If Gregory of Tours represents Frigeridus accurately, his version displays a much more friendly attitude towards Honorius, who is not accused of treachery and rancour towards Constantine. The assimilation of Iovinus’ troops with those of Edobichus confirms a tendency also present in Frigeridus F4, where it may be implied that Decimius Rusticus, the praetorian prefect of Constantine (cf. Frigeridus F2), also 105

Mincia, near Verona: cf. Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1243; Continuatio Havniensis of Prosper a. 411. Olympiodorus F17 has Constantine executed 30 miles from Ravenna. 106 Constantine’s head was displayed in Ravenna on 18 September 411 (Consularia Constantinopolitana a. 411). He must, therefore, have died shortly before. Girotti 2017, 188 seeks to link this passage to Sidonius Apollinaris, Panegyric on Avitus 207, who mentions a tax imposed on the city around this period, but the reference is too general to support this theory. 107 Scharf 1993, 1; Cesa 1994, 150; Ehling 1996, 10. 108 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.13.3; Olympiodorus F17. Cf. Drinkwater 1998, 284–5; Kulikowski 2000a, 340. 109 Orosius, Histories 7.42.4 also ignores these elements.

120

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

served Iovinus. This has the result of making the usurpers of 407–13 one continuous group of interlinked individuals.110 Given the circumstantial and plausible details in Sozomen, it is likely that he (and thus Olympiodorus) represents a more trustworthy version of events. Frigeridus’ version can be explained in various ways. It may be the case that Iovinus intended to come to the support of Constantine, only to be forestalled by his defeat.111 If Decimius Rusticus also served Iovinus, this may be a plausible reconstruction of Frigeridus’ narrative: the troops originally raised by Decimius to support Constantine went into Iovinus’ service after Constantine’s defeat.112 Frigeridus would then have mistakenly cast Iovinus as already being an emperor at this point, unless one wishes to suppose that Iovinus had already been proclaimed emperor but desired to share power with Constantine. More plausibly, Frigeridus’ account may be the result of a telescoping of events, with Frigeridus writing at least twenty years later: the proclamation of Iovinus happened around the same time that Constantine was under siege, and the attempt by Constantine to raise Germanic troops in 411 (Frigeridus F2) would look very similar to the composition of the army of Iovinus. Given that the fragment is, like F2, fairly vague on actual details (How were things sped up? How was the city opened?), it is quite possible that Frigeridus did indeed conflate the end of Constantine with the arrival of Iovinus.113 F4: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch and Levison 1951, 56.20–57.4) Et post pauca idem refert: Hisdem diebus praefectus tyrannorum Decimius Rusticus, Agroetius ex primicirio notariorum Iovini multique nobiles apud Arvernus capti a ducibus Honorianis et crudeliter interempti sunt. Treverorum civitas a Francis direpta incensaque est secunda inruptione.

110

This representation is followed by Matthews 1975, 313 and Demougeot 1979, 446, suggesting that Decimius Rusticus helped engineer the proclamation of Iovinus. Hoffmann 1995, 561 and Drinkwater 1998, 288–9, suggest that Iovinus had served Constantine. 111 Scharf 1993, 2; Ehling 1995, 10. Lütkenhaus 1998, 49 stresses that this is not explicitly stated by Frigeridus. 112 Drinkwater 1998, 289 n. 136 considers this recruitment a doublet with Constantine III’s efforts recorded in F2. 113 This means that we do not know whether Iovinus was proclaimed emperor during or after Constantine’s usurpation. Even when discounting the evidence from Frigeridus, it cannot be ruled out that Iovinus, when confronted with the weakness of Constantine, did the same as Gerontius and proclaimed himself emperor. For an early date, on the basis of Frigeridus, see Scharf 1993, 1–2 and Cesa 1994, 150. The discounting of Frigeridus does not necessarily imply a later date for the usurpation (pace Drinkwater 1998, 289 n. 136).

Historiae

121

And a bit later he recounts this: In these days, the prefect of the usurpers Decimius Rusticus,114 Agroetius, former head of Iovinus’ secretaries,115 and many noblemen were captured among the Arverni116 by the generals of Honorius117 and brutally killed. The city of Trier was looted by the Franks and was set on fire during a second attack.118 Commentary Frigeridus is the only historian to mention these events. Iovinus, who was proclaimed emperor in 411, was captured in the summer of 413 at Valence by Athaulf, the leader of the Goths who had initially supported him.119 As Iovinus and his brothers Sebastianus and Sallustius must have been Athaulf ’s first priority, it seems safe to assume that the capture and execution120 of Rusticius and Agroecius happened after that date.121 Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that they were taken earlier. Handed over to the Imperial army by Athaulf, Iovinus was executed in Narbonne,122 which was, therefore, the location of Dardanus, the praetorian prefect loyal to Honorius123 who enacted the execution. This killing may have been in preparation for an attack on Iovinus’ supporters further to the north. Rusticius and Agroecius may have fled to Clermont-Ferrand or sought to levy troops there. The presence of many noblemen bears witness to the extent of the support that Iovinus had received from the Gallic nobility. The grandfather 114

The phrase ‘prefect of the usurpers’ could only refer to Decimius’ service under Constantine III and Constans, but it may well imply that he also served as praetorian prefect under Iovinus (PLRE II, 965 (9); Scharf 1993, 7–8; Hoffmann 1995, 561; Drinkwater 1998, 288). See the commentary on F3. 115 Agroecius is only mentioned here: PLRE II, 38–9 (2); Scharf 1993, 7, 9–10, argues that as Agroecius was primicerius, not the highest position available, Iovinus must have appointed other people to these higher functions and thus sought to build up a full administrative machinery. On notaries in general, see Teitler 1985. 116 Two readings are possible: Arverni (reading -os for -us) or Avernum (reading -um for -us), that is, Clermont-Ferrand). The Arverni were a Gallic people living in modern Auvergne: Ihm 1896. 117 The ‘generals of Honorius’ probably include Claudius Postumus Dardanus, to whom Athaulf handed over Iovinus and who had him executed: PLRE II, 346–7; Drinkwater 1998, 291–2. 118 The date is most likely 413 or shortly afterwards: de Boone 1954, 121; Demougeot 1966; Anton 1984, 10 (with a thorough review of earlier discussions); Runde 1998, 675. Demougeot 1979, 484 wishes to date the second sack to before 423. On the various sacks of Trier, see Salvianus, On government by God 6.72, 75, 83. 119 Chronicle of 452, 71. Cf. Seeck 1916, 2012–13; Scharf 1993, 6, 11–13; Hirschmann 2011. 120 Szidat 2010, 334 notes that not all late antique usurpers were punished so severely. 121 Cf. Olympiodorus F20, indicating that Athaulf first killed Sebastianus and then persuaded Iovinus to surrender. 122 Hydatius, Chronicle 47 (54). 123 PLRE II, 346; Drinkwater 1998, 291–2.

122

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

of Sidonius Apollinaris had also sided with Iovinus.124 On the basis of this, R. Scharf suggests that Iovinus did not have designs on the whole of the Empire but wished to establish his rule in Gaul.125 It should be noted that Iovinus was raised to the Imperial throne by two barbarian kings, the Alan Goar and the Burgundian Gunthiarius, who may have set him up to extract land or concessions. It may, therefore, be misleading to understand Iovinus as the representative of the Gallic aristocracy. The sack of Trier must presumably be situated in 413. Trier had been held by Iovinus, and his elimination may have led to problems in the defence of the frontier. Frigeridus may therefore be suggesting a causal link between two bits of information that appear to be juxtaposed. If the Franks, who had earlier helped the Romans to contain the invasion of 406/7 (F1), had struck deals with Iovinus when he was emperor, the collapse of Iovinus may have caused the Romans not to live up to their promises, with the Franks retaliating against the major city of the region. Frigeridus, like Hydatius, attributes the elimination of the followers of Iovinus to the ‘generals of Honorius’, whereas Prosper and Sozomen use the expression to designate Constantius (III) and Ulfilas in 411.126 The emphasis on Honorius’ agency is significant, as we know from Olympiodorus (F20) that the Gothic leader Athaulf was responsible for bringing down the usurper Iovinus. Athaulf had first been allied with Iovinus, but changed sides when the usurper allied himself with Sarus, an enemy of Athaulf. This suggests a tendency to downplay the role of the Goths and to emphasize the role played by the legitimate emperor. Olympiodorus, by contrast, tends to downplay the positive agency of Honorius,127 which is corrected in Sozomen so as to emphasize divine support for Honorius.128 This move ties in with Frigeridus’ tendency, observed in other fragments, to emphasize Imperial agency and to be critical of barbarian groups. F5: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.9 (Krusch and Levison 1951, 57.4–6) Cum autem Asterius codicillis imperialibus patriciatum sortitus fuisset, haec adiungit: Eodem tempore Castinus domesticorum comes, 124

Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 5.9.1; PLRE II, 113. Scharf 1993, 3; Drinkwater 1998, 288–9, with nuances. Cf. Hydatius, Chronicle 46 (54): Iovinus et Sebastianus oppressi ab Honorii ducibus Narbona interfecti; Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1243: per Honorii duces …; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.14.3: τοῖς Ὁνωρίου στρατηγοῖς. 127 Van Nuffelen 2013. 128 Van Nuffelen 2004b. 125

126

Historiae

123

expetitionem in Francos suscepta,129 ad Gallias mittitur. Haec hi de Francis dixire.

When Asterius had received the patriciate by Imperial codicils, he adds the following: at the same time, Castinus, comes domesticorum, after having taken on an expedition to the Franks, was sent to Gaul. These things they have said about the Franks. Commentary Although little is known about him,130 Asterius was the major Roman official dealing with Spain c. 419–21: he commanded an army that pushed the Vandals into Baetica and may have been responsible for suppressing the usurpation of Maximus (between July 419 and end of 421).131 He received the patriciate, a honorary title, for one or both achievements.132 It is likely that an army was assembled to fight in Spain only once in these years, and one may therefore presume he received the honour for the successful completion of the entire campaign.133 The defeat of Maximus was celebrated during the tricennalia of Honorius in 422,134 presumably around his dies imperii of 23 January. If the defeat of Maximus earned Asterius the patriciate, he may have received it around that time. Asterius was probably relieved by Castinus, who was the next Roman general to campaign in Spain. Flavius Castinus is indeed attested elsewhere as magister militum in 422, waging war in Spain.135 He may have 129

Read either expeditione suscepta or expeditionem susceptus. F2 (adsumpta tyrannida) suggests the first option. 130 Asterius (PLRE II, 171 (4); Kulikowski 2000b) is only attested three times: as vir illustris waging a war in Spain (Augustine, Letter 11*.7), as comes Hispaniarum in 420 pushing the Vandals into Baetica (Hydatius, Chronicle 66 (74)), and as patricius here, c. 420/2: Kulikowski 2000b, 128 proposes that he received this honour after the death of Constantius III, that is, after February 421. He was of Spanish origin, or, at least, had relatives there: Augustine, Letter 11*, 3–4. 131 PLRE II, 745 (7); Scharf 1992; Kulikowski 2000b, 126 and 2004, 173–6, who suggests that Asterius’ campaign was not extensively planned: he seized the opportunity offered by the conflict between the Vandals and Suebi. 132 It is possible that the letter of Honorius to the Spanish soldiers, mentioning a commander Sabinianus, also a patrician, in Spain, dates from these years: Sivan 1990. 133 Kulikowski 2004, 172 states that Asterius led an army that was already established in Spain. 134 Consularia Marsiburgensia a. 422 (Bischoff and Koehler 1939, 127); Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle a. 422. 135 Hydatius, Chronicle 69 (77); Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1278 (dux), 1282 (magister militum). Cf. PLRE II, 279–80 (2); Scharf 1996, 92–3.

124

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

sided with the usurper John in 423.136 Comes domesticorum, that is, head of the guard, was a lower rank than magister militum, and the campaign against the Franks is therefore to be dated to before 422,137 or, more exactly, to before mid/late 422, as we do not know when precisely the Spanish campaign of Castinus started. We cannot infer from the fragment that the award of the patriciate to Asterius preceded the campaign by Castinus against the Franks, as Frigeridus indicates simultaneity: both happened around the same time. It is clear that Frigeridus narrated the former before the latter, but that cannot be proof of chronological succession. We can thus only date both events to the second half of 421 or the first half of 422. It is unknown what the reason was for the campaign against the Franks, which is only attested here. A third sack of Trier by the Franks could be dated to 419/20, and this may have been a trigger for this expedition.138 This fragment conforms to the general pattern of Frigeridus: there is a focus on military action by the Roman centre against threats in the periphery. The indication of simultaneity suggests that Frigeridus narrated contemporaneous events in successive blocks. F6: Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.8 (Krusch and Levison 1951, 50.16–52.8) Igitur his ita degestis ac per ordinem expletis, quid de Aetio supra memorato Renati Frigiredi narret historia, tacere nefas putavi. Nam cum in duode­ cimo historiarum libro referat, post divi Honori excessum Valentinianum puerolum, uno tantum lustro peracto, a consubrino Theodosio impe­ ratorem fuisse creatum et apud urbem Romam tyrannum Iohannem in imperium surrexisse, legatusque eius a Caesare dicat fuisse dispectus139, adiecit: Dum haec ita gererentur, legati ad tyrannum reversi sunt, mandata atrocia reportantes. Quibus permotus Iohannis Aetium, id temporis curam Palatii, cum ingenti auri pondere ad Chunus transmittit, notus sibi obsidatus sui tempore et familiari amicicia divinctos, cum mandatis huiusmodi: cum primum partes adversae Italiam ingressae forent, ipse a tergo adoriretur, se ad fronte venturum. Et quia de hoc viro consequenter plura memoranda sunt, genus moresque ordire placet. Gaudentius pater, 136

McEvoy 2013, 227–9. For criticism, see Wijnendaele 2015, 60–1. Kulikowski 2000b, 128. 138 Beisel 1987, 39; Runde 1998, 675. 139 Read legatos … dispectos. 137

Historiae

125

Scyciae provintiae primoris loci, a domesticatu exorsus militiam, usque ad magisterii equitum culmen profectus. Mater Itala, nobilis ac locuplex faemina. Aetius filius a puero praetorianus, tribus annis Alarici obsessus, dehinc Chunorum; post haec Carpilionis gener, ex comite domesticorum et Iohannis cura palatii. Medii corporis, virilis habitudinis, decenter formatus, quo neque infirmitudini esset neque oneri, animo alacer, membris vegitus, eques prumptissimus, sagittarum iactu peritus, contu inpiger, bellis aptissimus, pacis artibus celebris, nullius avaritiae, minimae cupiditatis, bonis animi praeditus, ne inpulsoribus quidem pravis ab instituto suo devians, iniuriarum patientissimus, laboris adpetens, inpavidus periculorum, famis, sitis, vigiliarum tolerantissimus. Cui ab ineunte aetate praedictum liquet, quantae potentiae fatis distinaretur, temporibus suis locisque celebrandus. Haec supradictus historiograffus de Aetio narrat. Adultus autem Valentinianus imperator, metuens, ne se per tyrannidem Aetius oppraemeret, eum nullis causis extantibus interimit. Ipse postmodum Augustus dum in campo Martio pro tribunali resedens concionaretur ad populum, Occila, buccellarius Aeti, ex adverso veniens, eum gladio ­perfodit. Talis utrisque extitit finis.

Therefore, having treated these things and set them out in the right order, I considered it wrong to conceal what the history of Renatus Frigeridus says about the above-mentioned Aetius.140 For when he relates in the twelfth book of his histories that after the death of the deified Honorius the little boy Valentinian, only five years old, was made emperor by his cousin Theodosius141 and that the usurper John proclaimed himself emperor near the city of Rome,142 and when he says that his envoys had been humiliated 140

Flavius Aetius held military commands almost uninterruptedly from 425 until 454, when he was murdered by Valentinian III. He started as comes, became magister equitum per Gallias, and in 430 became magister utriusque militia. After the conflict with Bonifatius (cf. Wijnendaele 2015) ended with the latter’s death (432), he was the undisputed power behind the throne in the West. See PLRE II, 21–9 (7); Zecchini 1983; Stickler 2002; Heather 2006, 281–99; Börm 2013, 66–71; McEvoy 2013, 251–72; Wijnendaele 2017. 141 Valentinian III was proclaimed Caesar in Thessalonica on 23 October 424 by Helion, whilst being sent by Theodosius II to reclaim the throne from the usurper John: PLRE II, 1138–9 (4). Exactly a year later, after the defeat of the usurper, he was proclaimed Augustus. Based on his indication of Valentinian’s age (he was born on 2 July 419) and the reference to the fact that the usurpation was still ongoing, Frigeridus here refers to the first proclamation. 142 John, usurper 423–5: PLRE II, 594–5 (6). He was proclaimed on 20 November 423 and killed in 425. Cf. McEvoy 2013, 225–34.

126

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

by the Caesar,143 he has added: While these things happened in this way, the ambassadors returned to the usurper,144 bringing back with them a threatening message.145 Distressed by this, John sent Aetius, at the time cura palatii,146 with a large sum of gold to the Huns, known to him since the time he was a hostage there and connected to him by an intimate friendship, with the following orders: as soon as the enemy entered Italy, he himself would attack them from behind, while they were to attack from the front.147 And because hereafter many things will be recorded about this man, I want to begin with his birth and character. His father Gaudentius, who belonged to the local elite of the province of Scythia, began his service as domesticus, and progressed from that position to the summit, as magister equitum.148 His Italian mother was a noble and rich woman. Their son Aetius, from young age a praetorian,149 was held as a hostage for three years by Alaric,150 and 143

According to Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical history 12.13, the ambassadors were exiled to the Propontis. Caesar here refers to Theodosius II rather than Valentinian III. It is likely that the ambassadors arrived in Constantinople before Valentinian III was sent to Rome. As is often the case in these fragments, the relative chronology is not respected. 144 Frigeridus ignores the exile imposed upon the ambassadors mentioned by Philostorgius. 145 That is, the threat of the military response that effectively followed. 146 The cura palatii was a tribune in the Imperial guard, the scholae palatinae: Jones 1964, 372. 147 Aetius effectively arrived with a group of barbarians, but after the defeat of John. After an initial battle, he treated with Aspar, the Roman commander: Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1288; Olympiodorus F43.2; Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical history 12.14. Cf. Stein 1949a, 282–5. 148 Gaudentius, PLRE II, 493–4 (5); Stickler 2002, 21–3. Aetius’ father was well known in his own right: cf. Merobaudes, Panegyric 2.110–20, alluding to a plot that killed him. Chronicle of 452, 97 notes that he was killed by soldiers in Gaul. Besides Frigeridus, most of what we know about him comes from Jordanes, Getica 176. Gaudentius descended from a family of Durostorum in the province of Scythia Minor. Domesticatus means service as domesticus, which here most likely means protector domesticus, that is, member of the Imperial bodyguard. He is then attested as comes Africae in 399 (Codex Theodosianus 11.17.3; Consularia Constantinopolitana a. 399; Augustine, On the city of God 18.54) and magister equitum per Gallias (or magister equitum praesetalis) in 425, the year of his death. He was appointed by the usurper John. Wijnendaele 2017, 470 argues this occurred because John was short of capable supporters. 149 In a classical sense, praetorianus means ‘member of the praetorian guard’; after the dissolution of the guard by Constantine the Great it refers to the offices of the praetorian prefect, a civil office, or to the title of praetor (TLL X, 2, 1066–7). In particular, praetorianus was a high grade in the corps of the notaries: Jones 1964, 103; Teitler 1985, 20. It has been suggested that Aetius served in the offices of the praetorian guard (Seeck 1894a, 701) or started his career as a notary (Mommsen 1906, 533). As Aetius is only attested in military functions, as are his father and father-in-law, it would be remarkable if he started his career among the notaries (cf. Teitler 1985, s.v. Aetius). PLRE II, 21 interprets the term to mean that Aetius had the honorary title of praetorianus as a military tribune tribuni praetoriani partis militaris (cf. Codex Iustinianus 12.23.13 (427/8); Jones 1964, 592 n. 67). Such a level of detailed knowledge about Aetius’ early career would be remarkable, and one may prefer to think that Gregory or Frigeridus uses the term praetorianus in an archaizing sense to mean that Aetius served in the bodyguard (as do extant translations: Dalton 1927, 48; Meijer and Wes 2000, 182). The last solution would fit the context better: Frigeridus gives the career of his characters, whereas an honorary dignity is not a function. 150 Cf. Merobaudes, Panegyric 2.127–43. These three years must fall between 402 and 408: Stickler 2002, 23. Scholars tend to prefer 405–8: Clover 1971, 58; PLRE II, 21; Zecchini 1983, 120; Stickler

Historiae

127

then by the Huns;151 later, he became the son-in-law of Carpilio,152 a former comes domesticorum,153 and was made cura palatii of John. He was of medium build, manly in appearance, well-formed, that is, neither too weak nor too heavy, quick-witted, with agile limbs, a most skilful horseman, an adept archer, tireless with the spear, very skilled at battle, famous in the arts of peace, without any avarice, with very little lust, endowed with a good mind, not deviating from his aims even by bad impulses, very patient with regard to injustice done to him, eager for work, undaunted in danger, very good at enduring hunger, thirst, and lack of sleep. It is clear that from his early youth it was foretold to him to what great power he was destined by the fates.154 He will be praised in the right time and place. This the aforementioned historiographer says about Aetius. But when the emperor Valentinian reached adulthood, fearing that Aetius would crush him by usurpation, he killed him without any charges. Later, while the emperor himself was addressing the people, sitting on the tribunal in the Campus Martius, Occila, a bucellarius of Aetius,155 coming from behind,156 pierced him with a sword.157 Such was the end of each of them. Commentary This is the longest fragment quoted by Gregory, which confirms the impression that Frigeridus was well informed yet did not offer a detailed narrative. If the careers of Aetius, his father, and his father-in-law are set 2002, 23. Note that Zosimus, New history 5.36.1 mentions that Alaric demanded Aetius in 408 and obtained him in 409. 151 This period could fall between 408 and 425: Clover 1971, 30; Demougeot 1979, 365–6; Stickler 2002, 23, 88; McEvoy 2013, 244–6. Zecchini 1983, 120 argues for 406, 408, or 416, and prefers 408. Aetius was often reliant on Hunnic troops: Stickler 2002, 85–154; Heather 2006, 261–2, 286–8. For Aetius to be attractive as a hostage, he or his family must have already had some importance at this point: cf. Matthews 1975, 379; McEvoy 2013, 227. 152 PLRE II, 262 (1). Carpilio is only attested here. Aetius named one of his sons after him and the other after his own father, Gaudentius. Aetius may have been married more than once: see Clover 1971, 30–2. 153 That is, commander of the domestici, the ‘officer cadets’: Jones 1964, 372. 154 See also Merobaudes, Panegyric 2.135–6. 155 Optila, PLRE II, 810. With Thraustila, the Hun or Goth Optila had entered the bodyguard of Valentinian III after having served Aetius. Continuatio Havniensis of Prosper a. 455 concurs with Frigeridus in calling him a bucellarius, a term indicating an armed follower (cf. Gascou 1976). On the name (Occila, a form of Accila, the Latinized form of Achiulf ), see Francovich Onesti 2007, 28. 156 For this meaning, see Blaise s.v. adversus. Ex adverso can also mean ‘with hostile intent’. A double meaning may be intended here. 157 On the death of Valentinian III, see p. 175 n. 50.

128

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

out very briefly, the portrait of Aetius is longer and obviously rhetorically elaborated.158 We have other eulogies of Aetius, in Merobaudes,159 Jordanes,160 and Sidonius Apollinaris.161 F. Clover has argued that there are close parallels with Jordanes and suggests that official rhetoric is the distant source of both Frigeridus and Jordanes.162 In fact, there is only a general resemblance and all the accolades given use traditional items of panegyric suitable for a military man like Aetius.163 Although a shared reliance on panegyrics such as those of Merobaudes is possible, it must be noted that

158

Halsall 2007, 242–56. Merobaudes, Panegyric 1.F1B ll. 9–14: Iam vero praeter Martias laudes cuius tanta in consiliis alacritas, in iudiciis severitas, in conloquiis mansuetudo, in vultu aequalitas, in ira brevitas, in amore diuturnitas? (‘But aside from distinction in battle, who is there who exhibits so great a celerity in planning, a strictness in judgement, a gentleness in conversation, a serenity of expression, a brevity of anger and an enduring love?’ tr. Clover 1971, 12). 160 Jordanes, Getica 176: Aetius ergo patricius tunc praeerat militibus, fortissimorum Moesium stirpe progenitus in Dorostorena civitate a patre Gaudentio, labores bellicos tolerans, rei publicae Romanae singulariter natus, qui superbam Suavorum Francorumque barbariem immensis caedibus servire Romano imperio coegisset (‘The patrician Aetius was then commanding the soldiers, descended from the race of the most valiant Moesians through his father Gaudentius in the city of Durostorum. Able to bear the labours of war and specifically born for the Roman state, with great slaughter, he forced the proud barbarians of the Suavi and the Franks to serve the Roman Empire’). Weissensteiner 1994b, 127 has argued on the basis of the similarity between Jordanes, Getica 176 and Frigeridus F6 that Cassiodorus, History of the Goths (FHistLA 17) used Frigeridus. Yet the parallels are too vague to allow for such a conclusion. 161 Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 7.12.3 (Aetium Ligeris liberatorem (‘Aetius, the liberator of the Loire’), Panegyric of Avitus 231 (celsus in armis). 162 Clover 1971, 38–9; cf. Zecchini 1993, 163–80. 163 Panegyrici Latini 2(12).40.2 lists the virtues of constantia, patientia, prudentia, and fortitudo in a military context. Panegyrici Latini 9(4).8.1 lists the virtues continentia, modestia, vigilantia, and patientia. The qualities listed by Frigeridus (nullius avaritiae … tolerantissimus) are illustrations of these virtues. For other parallels, see the following passages: Panegyrici Latini 2(12).20.4 (avaritia); Panegyrici Latini 2(12).12.4, 4(10).5.6 (cupiditas); Panegyrici Latini 2(12).13.3, 40.2, 4(10).12.4 (patientia); Panegyrici Latini 2(12).40.2 (constantia); Panegyrici Latini 12(9).3.2 (war and peace); Panegyrici Latini 3(11).13.3, 20.2 (vigilantia). Ammianus Marcellinus wrote many descriptions of the appearance of his characters, in particular emperors: see 14.11.28, 21.16.19, 25.4.22, 30.9.6, 31.14.7. Positive features highlighted by Frigeridus, such as medium height and beauty of the body, recur in these passages. In Ammianus such descriptions are embedded in much longer descriptions of the virtues and vices of the rulers, in comparison to which Frigeridus’ catalogue is rather brief. In fact, the latter’s description clearly aims at brevity. For an emperor having the same military qualities as Aetius, see Ammianus 21.16.7 on Constantius II, and more briefly 30.9.4 on Valentinian I. See also Sidonius, Panegyric of Avitus 230. Wiemer and Berndt 2017, 144 wrongly state that Aetius is the first Roman commander to be praised for his archery skills, as Ammianus lists this among the qualities of Constantius (21.16.7). 159

Historiae

129

the image of Aetius in Western sources is generally positive,164 and rather than supposing a direct use of panegyric we should see Frigeridus’ praise as a reflection of that tradition. Discussion is hampered by the fact that we do not know if Frigeridus wrote before or after Aetius’ death. If he wrote whilst Aetius was alive, his history clearly defended Aetius’ regime. If he wrote later, he is clearly part of the tradition that viewed Aetius positively. On either interpretation, F6 shows that Aetius was to be a major figure in Frigeridus’ history. Frigeridus looks ahead to the great deeds of Aetius. Extant Western chronicles and panegyrics, generally positive towards him,165 nominally attribute the following achievements to Aetius, even if they do not neglect the infighting with his rivals:166 the relief of Arles, besieged by the Goths (c. 425);167 a defeat of the Franks (428);168 victories over the Iuthungi (430),169 Goths (430),170 and Nori (431);171 a victory and peace treaty with the Franks (432);172 the defeat and settlement of the Burgundians (436);173 a defeat of the Visigoths (438);174 a settlement of the Alans in Amorica (442);175 a battle near Arras (448?);176 and the defeat of Attila (451).177 If we take this as a guide to the achievements of Aetius that were deemed worthy of recording and celebration in the fifth century, Frigeridus’ reference to ‘many deeds’ suggests that he narrated (some of ) the events of the 430s, even if we cannot be sure how far he went. If we are allowed to read into the reference to Aetius’ ‘great power’ the suggestion of supreme power, Frigeridus was writing after 433, that is, after the death of Bonifatius, the comes Africae (423–7,

164

Zecchini 1983, 19–100 provides a full analysis of all traditions. For criticism of this positive image, see Wijnendaele 2017. 165 Zecchini 1983, 67–78; McEvoy 2013, 252. But note that subtle criticism is, for example, visible in Prosper Tiro: Becker and Kötter 2016, 14–22. 166 Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1303 notes the murder of Felix (430), Hydatius, Chronicle 89 (99) the struggle with Bonifatius (432). 167 Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1290; Chronicle of 452, 102. 168 Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1298. 169 Chronicle of 452, 106; Hydatius, Chronicle 83 (93). 170 Hydatius, Chronicle 83 (93). 171 Hydatius, Chronicle 83 (93). Cf. Sidonius Apollinaris, Panegyric of Avitus 233. 172 Hydatius, Chronicle 88 (98). 173 Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1322; Hydatius, Chronicle 102 (110); Chronicle of 511, 596. See also Sidonius Apollinaris, Panegyric of Avitus 234–5; Merobaudes, Panegyric 2.5–7. 174 Hydatius, Chronicle 104 (112). Cf. Merobaudes, Panegyric 1.F2B ll. 11–12, 2.16–23. 175 Chronicle of 452, 127. Cf. Merobaudes, Panegyric 2.8–15. 176 Sidonius Apollinaris, Panegyric of Majorian 210–18. 177 Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1364; Hydatius, Chronicle 142 (150) and 146 (154); Chronicle of 511, 615.

130

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

429–32) who used Africa as his basis to establish control over Italy,178 and Aetius’ return to uncontested power. The focus on Aetius confirms the Imperial Western perspective suggested by other fragments. That Aetius and his father had sided with a usurper is noted but not negatively presented: indeed, Frigeridus uses what may have been the first appearance of Aetius in his history for a highly laudatory portrait. 178

PLRE II, 237–40; Wijnendaele 2015.

11

Favius History?

Previous editions: FGrHist 708 F4; BNJ 708 F4 Little has been said, and can be said, about Favius.1 He should be dated after the beginning of the third century AD and before the middle of the sixth, that is, writing after Cassius Dio (see the commentary on F1) and before Jordanes. Favius alleged that (part of ) the port of Ravenna had been silted over and had been turned into a public space. This suggests a late date for the work, when the process of sedimentation had considerably progressed. The nature of the work remains unclear. Conceivably it could have been any type of writing, for example, a letter. But given the fact that Jordanes’ prose sources were mainly geographical and historiographical in nature, it is likely that the work of Favius belonged to one of these genres. One may, however, also think of a panegyric (see below). The form of the name could be Favius, Fabius, or Flavius. The manuscripts almost unanimously agree on one of the two first forms. Both are also onomastically possible. Flavius would make little sense as a late antique identifier, as it served as a universal identifier for upper class Romans in Late Antiquity.2 The identification of the author is impossible.3

Historia? F1: Jordanes, Getica 151 (Mommsen 1882, 97.11–15; cf. Giunta and Grillone 1991, 65.6–8 = Grillone 2017, 129–31) 1

Mommsen 1882, xxxiii; Giordano 1973, 52; Pierpaoli 1984, 175. Salway 1994, 137–40. Wagner 1967, 40–3 argues for Flavius. 3 There is a grammarian and medical author from the fourth century called Favius or Flavius (PLRE I, 349; Kaster 1988, 285), but this author would be too early. 2

131

132 Favius qui nunc, ut Favius4 ait, quod5 aliquando portus fuerit, spatiosissimus ortus6 ostendit arboribus plenus, verum de quibus non pendeant vela, sed poma.

And where7 there was once a port, as Favius says, a most spacious garden now shows up full of trees, from which hang down not sails but apples. Commentary The fragment is part of a digression that describes Ravenna (Jordanes, Getica 148–52). It is preceded by an explicit reference to Cassius Dio (a lost portion of his history)8 and an allusion to Vergil (Georgics 1.482). Given that the digression opens with a Greek etymology for the Veneti from ainetoi, the bulk of the passage may derive from Dio. Yet the references to Vergil and Favius, whose statement is explicitly indicated as describing the situation contemporary with Jordanes, must have been added by a Latin author postdating Dio. This may have been Jordanes himself or, possibly, his source Cassiodorus. At any rate, Favius must postdate Cassius Dio. The passage offers an overtly dramatic description of the sedimentation that had taken place in the harbour of Ravenna, in particular from the third century onwards, when the size of the fleet seems to have diminished, and hence less maintenance was needed.9 The disappearance of the harbour into the lagoon is usually situated after the sixth century,10 but this passage seems to date it substantially earlier. Favius probably exaggerated for rhetorical effect. One should note, however, that Sidonius Apollinaris, in a letter dated around 468, talks about how, in Ravenna, the laws of nature are turned upside down: ‘towers float and ships are grounded’.11 One could read this as another – again rhetorical – reference to sedimentation that may have been worked up by Favius. 4

Favius: HPVLAO, Fabius: BXY, Ablabius: Mommsen [‘malim’], Flavius: E, Giunta–Grillone. quo: Giunta–Grillone. 6 spatiotissimos hortos … plenos: Giunta–Grillone. 7 For this sense of quod, see Galdi 2013, 389 n. 102. 8 For the argument that this reference is to Cassius Dio and not Dio Chrysostom, as is sometimes alleged, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. 9 Deliyannis 2010, 37, 54–5. 10 Deliyannis 2010, 40. 11 Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 1.8.2, tr. Anderson. See also Letter 1.5. 5

Historia?

133

A possible interpretation is that Favius wished to stress how peace had descended on Ravenna: where one once counted the sails of warships, one now gathers fruit. Speculatively, one could interpret it as a praise of the peace brought by Theoderic to the city.12 Given the little we know about Favius, this must remain a very cautious suggestion. 12

Deliyannis 2010, 116 notes an absence of praise for Ravenna under Theoderic in the extant sources. Favius might have composed such a work.

12

Consentius History?

Consentius is only known from a poem addressed to his homonymous son by Sidonius Apollinaris and composed between 462 and 466.1 To be dated to the first half of the fifth century, he married a girl from a consular family and this seems to have helped his son’s career.2 Sidonius portrays Consentius senior only as a writer, suggesting that his career consisted solely of literary activity.3 His son, by contrast, did have an administrative career, becoming curator palatii of the emperor Avitus (455–6), whilst also being literarily active.4 The fact that Sidonius can attach no distinction other than literature to the father suggests that this was his main achievement.5 Two grammatical treatises, Ars de duabus partibus orationis nomine et verbo and Ars de barbarismis et metaplasmis, are attributed to a certain Consentius, vir clarissimus, who has been located in Gaul on account of his use of Gallic place names in his examples.6 Robert Kaster argues that the works were produced by a learned amateur and not a professional grammarian, most likely by Consentius père, who would fit well given his name, rank, and location.7 It is uncertain if Consentius wrote a history, as Sidonius praises him for mastering all disciplines and genres. There is, however, much hyperbole in his praise, and so it is impossible to sift through it for the reality. 1

Sidonius Apollinaris, Poem 23. See PLRE II, 308 (1); Stroheker 1970a, nr. 95. On the poem, see most recently Wolff 2012; Santelia 2014 and 2016. 2 See PLRE II, 308 (1) and 308 (2); Stroheker 1970a, nr. 95 and 96. 3 Sidonius Apollinaris, Poem 23.174: larem sophistae. It may be important to note that Sidonius concludes the section on Greek authors with praise for Demosthenes, who advanced socially because of his rhetorical ability. This may reflect Consentius’ own position. 4 Kaufmann 1995, 292–3. 5 Sidonius praises Consentius for mastering the whole array of Greek and Latin literature, which recalls some of the praise Ausonius wrote for the professors of Bordeaux: see p. 136 n. 10 below. 6 Keil 1868, V, 329–404; PLRE II, 309 (3). 7 Kaster 1988, 397. See also Loyen 1960, 80.

134

Historia?

135

If Consentius did write a history, instead of merely teaching history, the nature of the work must remain unknown.

Historia? T1: Sidonius Apollinaris, Poem 23.131–5 (Loyen 1960, 149) Hic cum senipedem stilum polibat Zmyrnaeae vice doctus officinae Aut cum se historiae dabat severae, Primos vix poterant locos tueri Torrens Herodotus, tonans Homerus.

When he, accomplished in the manner of the Smyrnean school, polished a hexameter composition, or when he dedicated himself to serious8 history, burning Herodotus and roaring Homer could scarcely keep their first places. Commentary In the poem of praise for Consentius’ son, Sidonius also extensively praises the father (ll. 97–177). After praising him for combining sparkling wit, Roman sternness, and Attic elegance, Sidonius compares him to a host of Greek (ll. 101–44) and Latin authors (ll. 145–69): Consentius is praised for his wisdom, his knowledge of geometry, logic, poetry, tragedy, and comedy, before coming to our passage, where he is said to have been better than Homer in composing epic hexameters and better than Herodotus in writing history. In what follows first he is praised for his superiority in oratory, then Sidonius compares him with Latin authors, including Cicero, Vergil, Terence, Plautus, Varro, Sallust, Tacitus, Petronius, Ovid, the Senecas, and Martial.9 The testimony raises two questions. First, did Consentius write a history? The extensive comparison with a vast array of authors is a hyperbolic 8

Sidonius elsewhere mentions pondera historica (Letter 7.9.2), indicating that he characterizes historiography as a serious genre (see also Letter 4.22) (cf. Eigler 2003, 146–7). Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 4.3.8 contrasts, traditionally, the veracity of history with the charm of poetry. Letter 3.3.9 emphasizes that history is a complete account of events. 9 For a commentary on these verses, see Santelia 2016, 427–34.

136 Consentius way of underscoring the literary achievements of Consentius senior, and one may wonder if he really practised all these genres. Indeed, S. Santelia notes that the Greek names mentioned are ordered according to the liberal arts: philosophy (ll. 101–10), astronomy, geometry, and dialectic (ll. 111–19), music and grammar (ll. 120–35), and rhetoric (ll. 136–44). The Latin names, in turn, reflect the late antique canon. Thus the list reflects an educational program and a canon, and it would be dangerous to draw any firm conclusions from it. Ausonius regularly praises orators for engagement with history, but in his writings one can determine whether he means the reading and knowledge of history or the writing of historiography.10 Sidonius’ hyperbolic praise makes any such assessment virtually impossible. If there are reasons to be suspicious, one can nevertheless not firmly exclude the idea that Consentius wrote a history. Indeed, Sidonius suggests competition with Herodotus, which would imply that he did practise the genre. Many grammarians did, in fact, compose works of literature, making such an activity not uncommon.11 Second, did Consentius write in both Latin and Greek? Besides the fact that it would be remarkable to find someone writing in Greek in Gaul in the early fifth century, Sidonius seems to use the adjective Atticus in a metaphorical way to indicate the high level of literature achieved by Consentius: illum cui nitidi sales rigorque / Romanus fuit Attico in lepore (ll. 99–100): ‘a man in whom sparkling wit and Roman sternness were set amid Attic elegance’.12 Santelia’s observation that the list of Greek names reflects an ordered series of disciplines supports this conclusion:13 the Greek list probably serves to underscore a wide learning in all disciplines, rather than necessarily implying literary activity in Greek. Finally, there is little that can be said about the nature of the history, if it was ever written. If Consentius is identical with the grammarian whose two treatises are preserved, he may simply have composed some works for use in school, a compendium or compilation of some sort. As argued in the introduction to this work, this would be in line with the dominant form of Latin historiography that we encounter in this period. If one rejects the identification with Consentius the grammarian, there is nothing that can be said. 10

Ausonius, Letter 10.21 (Axius Paulus, reading), Letter 19 (Pontius Paulinus, a summary of Suetonius, De regibus: CHAP s.v.), Professors of Bordeaux 20 (Staphylius, reading), Professors of Bordeaux 21–2 (Latinus Alcimus Alethius, panegyrics of Julian and Sallust: FHistLA 22). 11 Carminius (FHistLA 1); Diogenes of Cyzicus; Eutychianus of Cappadocia; Julius Exuperantius, Horapollon the Elder; Lupercus of Beirut; Orion; Phocas; Platonius; Seleucus of Emesa; Solinus. For these, see CHAP s.v. 12 For such usage, see L&S s.v. Atticus. 13 Santelia 2016, 438–40.

13

Ablabius History

Previous editions: FGrHist 708 (Jacoby 1943); BNJ 708 (Frakes 2007). Jacoby, followed by Frakes, attributes too much material from Jordanes to Ablabius. Ablabius is probably to be dated to the fifth or early sixth century. Praised by Jordanes as descriptor Gothorum gentis egregius (F1: a ‘distinguished describer of the Gothic nation’), he has attracted much attention and speculation1 as a possible historian of the Goths. He would then predate Cassiodorus, writing in Italy between 515 and 526,2 and Jordanes, working in Constantinople in 551.3 We argue that he was most likely an historian who included geographical digressions, one of which touched upon Scythia. Ablabius is not an uncommon name, and there is no evidence to attribute Gothic ethnicity to him.4 His fragments focus on ancient Scythia, the region around Lake Maeotis, north of the Black Sea. The Greek etymology of the name Heruls found in F3 suggests at least an exposure to Greek culture. Moreover, all known late antique bearers of the name come from the Eastern Mediterranean. This favours an Eastern origin,5 and, in turn, renders it possible, but not necessary, that Ablabius wrote in Greek. 1

This enthusiasm goes back to the humanists: see the appendix to this chapter, p. 145. In modern scholarship this takes the form of a fascination with a possible emendation in Cassiodorus, Variae 10.22.2, where Mommsen (1894b, 312) and Fridh (1973, 405) would like to change abavi vestri historica monimenta into Ablavi. The conjecture would provide proof for the fact that Cassiodorus had already used Ablabius (Gärtner 1973, 10; Luiselli 1980, 241; O’Donnell 1982, 234; Momigliano 1960a, 215–16; PLRE II, 2 (6)), but this has been rejected often enough: Wagner 1967, 66; Baldwin 1981, 144; Goffart 1988, 62 n. 208; Heather 1991, 65 n. 81; Barnish 1992a, 139; Prostko-Prostynski 1994; Gillet 2000, 485; Amici 2002, 32–4. The passage should not be in an edition of Ablabius, even if it is still in BNJ 708 as F5. 2 FHistLA 17. 3 Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a. 4 Pace Heather 1991, 61–7. 5 Scharf 1991, 612; Gillett 2000. Further evidence for this would be the use of Ablabius by Eustathius of Epiphania, writing c. 500 (CHAP s.v.), proposed by Siebigs 2010, 923 n. 31, but this argument is too speculative to be convincing.

137

138 Ablabius Scholarship has been occupied with two interrelated issues. First, the dating of Ablabius, often conflated with identifications with other bearers of the name, and the location of his activity. Proposed dates range from the third century,6 the age of Constantine,7 the reign of Theodosius II,8 the end of the fifth century under the Visigothic kings Euric or Alaric II,9 and the age of Theoderic,10 to Constantinople in the sixth century.11 The earliest three dates necessitate a particular interpretation of F2, namely that either Jordanes added the reference to the Visigoths to the quotation of Ablabius or that Ablabius was the first to record the term, possibly two centuries before its earliest occurrence in the sixth century. The natural interpretation of the fragment implies that it dates to a time when the Ostrogoth/Visigoth distinction was current, that is, the end of the fifth or sixth century. The idea that Ablabius wrote under, indeed for, a Gothic king presupposes a certain reconstruction of his work – which is the second issue regarding Ablabius. The traditional view is that Ablabius was an historian of the Goths used by, and indeed a major source for, Cassiodorus and Jordanes.12 There is, in fact, little to recommend this view. Ablabius is cited by Jordanes for corroborative or additional evidence, but not for the main events of his narrative. This gives no support for the idea that he was an important source of information. The fragments also show that Ablabius was interested in the origins and names of barbarian tribes (not just the Goths) in a particular region (Scythia). There is no hint that he offered a full history of the Goths, nor that any other material in the Getica can be ascribed to him.13 If one sticks to the topics discussed in the fragments, there is little reason to suggest that Ablabius did more than describe the location and naming of tribes. In this case, he would be a geographer who

6

Coumert 2007, 69. Schirren 1858, 38–42 list possibilities without deciding the issue. Giordano 1973, 50, proposing an identification with the famous praefectus praetorio Orientis of 329–37 (PLRE I, 3–4 (4)); Zecchini 1993, 201–3; Mecella 2013, 420. Cf. Girotti 2009, 393 n. 5. 8 Scharf 1991, 612–13, who proposes an identification with the orator attested in Socrates, Ecclesiastical history 7.12.10 (PLRE I, 2 (2)). For a list of known sophists called Ablabius, see Janiszewski et al. 2015, 1–2. 9 Hachmann 1970, 59–75; Heather 1991, 63–6 and 2018. 10 Mommsen 1882, xxxvii–xxxix; Siebigs 2010, 923 n. 31 (493–502); Liebeschuetz 2011, 189–97. 11 Gutschmidt 1894, 303, suggesting the identity with the poet Ablabius illustris (PLRE III, 3 (2): Anthologia Graeca 9.762). 12 Schirren 1958, 36–44; Mommsen 1882, xxxvii–xxxix; Hachmann 1970, 487–98; Gärtner 1973, 10; Heather 1991, 62–8; Scharf 1991; 612–14; Silvestre 1997, 92; Frakes, BNJ 708; Liebeschuetz 2011, 191–7. For criticism, see Baldwin 1981; Luiselli 1992, 500–1 n. 53. 13 See the commentary below. 7

Historia?

139

was used by Jordanes for occasional references.14 When calling Ablabius descriptor Gothorum gentis, Jordanes suggests that Ablabius had a special interest in the Goths – just as he also did, for example, with Dio,15 but he also applies a label traditionally given to ethnographers: Ammianus Marcellinus, for example, uses descriptores gentium or descriptiones gentium to designate ethnographers or ethnography in his history.16 But this minimalist interpretation encounters the problem that Jordanes also calls the work historia (F1) and Ablabius istoricus (F2 and F3). In the Getica these appellations are generally reserved for works of narrative historiography, which makes it likely that Ablabius wrote such a work.17 All of this suggests that Ablabius did write a narrative history, which included geographical and ethnographic digressions, one of which concerned the people of Scythia. Jordanes used only that digression, and we can therefore only speculate about the nature of the history. Given Ablabius’ clear exposure to Greek culture and, possibly, historiography (Dexippus: see F3), there is no reason to suppose that he was writing in the West: he may have written in the East at any moment before Jordanes. The assumption that Ablabius was used by Cassiodorus and cited by Jordanes through him is possible, but given the Eastern context of the fragments, it is likely that Jordanes, who was working in Constantinople, used him directly.18 In sum, the most likely interpretation is that Ablabius is an otherwise unknown historian of the late fifth or first half of the sixth century, working in the East and possibly even writing in Greek, whose work included a geographical digression on Scythia. Other interpretations cannot be definitively excluded but require special pleading for particular fragments.

Historia? F1: Jordanes, Getica 4.28 (Mommsen 1882, 60.21–61.6; cf. Giunta and Grillone 1991, 13.4–11; Grillone 2017, 23) 14

Wagner 1967, 62–8; Gillett 2000; Merrills 2005, 156–7. In this minimalist interpretation, Ablabius must have been a geographer and not an ethnographer, for there are no independent works of ethnography. See discussions in Maas 2012; Kaldellis 2013. 15 Jordanes, Getica 40. This passage is usually taken to refer to Dio Chrysostom, but Jordanes confuses Cassius Dio and Dio Chrysostom. See the discussion in Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2020b. 16 Ammianus Marcellinus 23.6.1. 17 Getica 40, 58, 65 (Dio), 83 (Symmachus the Younger), 113 (Dexippus), 123, 178, 183, 222, 254–5 (Priscus). Getica 104 wrongly calls Dionysius of Alexandria an historian, misinterpreting information derived from Jerome (Chronicle 219a). In the other instances, Jordanes is likely to have had direct access to the works he cites (Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b). The geographers he used are never called such by Jordanes: Getica 16 (Pomponius Mela), 19 (Ptolemy). 18 Cf. Zecchini 1993, 205.

140 Ablabius Haec ergo pars Gothorum, quae apud Filemer dicitur in terras Oium emenso amne transposita, optatum potiti solum. Nec mora ilico ad gentem Spalorum adveniunt consertoque proelio victoriam adipiscunt19, exindeque iam velut victores ad extremam Scythiae partem, que Ponto20 mari vicina est, properant. Quemadmodum et in priscis eorum carminibus pene storicu21 ritu in commune recolitur: quod et Ablavius descriptor Gothorum gentis egregius verissima adtestatur historia.

So this part of the Goths is said to have crossed the river and migrated to the country of Oium with Filemer,22 and they acquired the land they desired. They came immediately to the nation of the Spali,23 joined in battle with them, gained a victory, and from there, like conquerors, hastened to the furthest part of Scythia, which is close to the Pontic Sea. Thus it is generally celebrated in their ancestral songs, in a manner that is almost historical. Ablabius, the distinguished surveyor of the Gothic race, also attests to this in his most trustworthy history. Commentary Like all fragments of Ablabius, this one derives from the Getica of Jordanes, which was a summary of the History of the Goths of Cassiodorus with personal additions. Jordanes wrote in Constantinople in 551.24 Here Jordanes is narrating how the Goths migrated from the mythical island of Scandza, situated in the northern Ocean, to the region north of the Pontus, that is, Scythia, where he locates their homeland in historical times. The place name Oium is attested only here, whilst Pliny the Elder locates the Spalei in Scythia.25 The passage presents Ablabius as offering independent confirmation, alongside the Goths’ ancestral songs, for their victory over the Spali and their settlement in Scythia. Contrary to what some scholars have stated,26 19

adipiscuntur: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. Pontico: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 21 historico: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 22 The fifth king of the Goths, according to Jordanes, Getica 26. 23 On the Spali, see Vernadsky 1938; Wolfram 2009, 53. 24 For further detail, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. For Cassiodorus, see below FHistLA 17. 25 Pliny the Elder, Natural history 6.7. 26 Mommsen 1882, xxxvii–xxxix; Hachmann 1970, 80–2; Frakes, BNJ 708 F1. 20

Historia?

141

the passage does not imply that Ablabius had recourse to oral tradition: he is simply adduced by Jordanes to confirm the oral traditions of the Goths.27 Indeed, the structure of the Latin (quemadmodum et … / quod et …) implies that Jordanes offers a double proof of his statement that the Goths settled in Scythia. Previous editors (Jacoby and Frakes) print Jordanes, Getica 25–8 as a fragment of Ablabius, although Frakes in his commentary (BNJ 708 F1) accepts that only the information contained in Getica 28 could possibly have come from Ablabius. This justifies our choice to print only Getica 28. Yet it is doubtful whether much of Getica 28 derives from Ablabius. A minimalist view has been defended by A. Gillett,28 who proposes that Ablabius only served to support Jordanes’ location of the Goths in Scythia. This hypothesis relies on the presupposition that Ablabius wrote a work of geography. Even if one does not support this idea (as we do not; cf. above), the minimalist interpretation of F1 is supported by the other two fragments, which are also concerned only with geographical information related to peoples living in Scythia. F2: Jordanes, Getica 14.82 (Mommsen 1882, 78.4–8; cf. Giunta and Grillone 1991, 39.1–5; Grillone 2017, 73) Ablabius29 enim storicus30 refert, quia ibi super limbum Ponti, ubi eos d ­ i­ximus 31 32 in Scythia commanere, ibi pars eorum, qui orientali plaga tenebat, eisque praeerat Ostrogotha, utrum ab ipsius nomine, an a loco, id est orientales, dicti sunt Ostrogothae, residui vero Vesegothae, id est a parte occidua.

Indeed, the historian Ablabius states that,33 there on the borders of the Pontus, where we said that they dwelt in Scythia,34 that there the part of 27

Even more erroneous is the idea that references to Ablabius serve to report oral information, on the basis of the formula Ablabius refert (Scardigli 1973, 282; Zottl 2004, 111, who speculates Ablabius is an invented name meaning ‘from the lips’ (Ab-labis)). Referre is always used by Jordanes to report written information (Getica 4, 121, 123, 178, 183, 254). 28 Gillett 2000, 486 n. 16. 29 Ablavius: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 30 historicus: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 31 quae: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 32 orientalem plagam: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 33 For this sense of quia, see Galdi 2013, 401. 34 Jordanes, Getica 5, 38, 42.

142 Ablabius them who occupied the Eastern bank and who were headed by Ostrogotha, were called Ostrogoths, either from his name or from the place, that is, the Eastern region. The others, however, were called Wisigoths, that is from the western region. Commentary There can be no discussion about the delimitation of this fragment: Jordanes has just concluded a digression on events contemporary with the time he was writing, and the next paragraph cites Symmachus the Younger (see below FHistLA 14) as a source. The fragment is clearly close to F1, as it is concerned with the Goths as located north of the Black Sea. The fragment describes the Goths as consisting of two groups, one located more to the East and one more to the West. The former goes under the name of Ostrogoths, which is either derived from their king Ostrogotha or from their location (the ‘Eastern Goths’).35 The king Ostrogotha is attested in connection with the events of 249–50 by Dexippus and, relying on him, in Jordanes,36 whilst the term Austrogothi is first attested in the Historia Augusta, Life of Claudius 6.2, in the context of the late third century, although the Historia Augusta itself was not written before the last quarter of the fourth century. Jordanes has Ablabius refer to the situation of the mid-third century; indeed, the fragment comes at the beginning of his account of the third century. If we seem to be able to connect the name Ostrogoth to the fourth century, the term Wisigothi occurs only in the sixth century and is generally taken to be a late fifth- and early sixth-century construct.37 Moreover, the division between Ostro- and Visigoths was the result of a realignment of Gothic groups after c. 370.38 There are, then, two possible ways of interpreting the fragment. One could argue that Ablabius referred to the situation of the mid-third century and only discussed the Ostrogoths. The reference to the Visigoths would be Jordanes’ own addition. This would mean that Ablabius can only be dated to after the middle of the third century. Yet, Jordanes attributes 35

This etymology has been rejected (Schönfeld 1911, 38, stating that it would mean ‘beaming’) and defended (Falcone 1993, 251; Wolfram 2003b, 345). Visigoths means ‘noble Goths’ (Wolfram 2006). 36 Martin and Grusková 2014; Jordanes, Getica 90, 98–100. Ostrogotha was often seen as a fictitious character (Heather 1989, 110 and 1991, 37; Amory 1997, 431; Wolfram 2009, 392), but the new Dexippus fragment has proven his historical reality. Cassiodorus, Variae 11.1.19 has a general reference to the patientia of Ostrogotha. 37 Cassiodorus, Variae 3.1.1; Life of Caesarius of Arles 1.20, 1.34, 2.10; Procopius, Wars 3.2.2. Cf. Coumert 2007, 68–9; Wolfram 2009, 36. 38 Heather 1991, 13–17.

Historia?

143

the whole of the passage, which is syntactically and logically coherent, explicitly to Ablabius. This would suggest that, if the extant attestations of the term Visigoths reflect the general pattern of the usage of the term, Ablabius was writing in the second half of the fifth century at the earliest, when the distinction between Visigoths and Ostrogoths had become entrenched and the term Visigoths developed. He would then not be describing the contemporary situation, for at that time the Visigoths were established in Spain and southern Gaul, while the Ostrogoths lived in Pannonia, Thrace, and, from 489 onwards, Italy.39 Rather, Ablabius sought to locate the Goths in what he considered to be their ancient homeland and to explain how they acquired the names that were common in his day and age. F3: Jordanes, Getica 23.117 (Mommsen 1882, 88.13–4; cf. Giunta and Grillone 1991, 52.7–12; Grillone 2017, 103) Sed cum tantorum servitio clarus haberetur, non passus est nisi et gentem Herulorum, quibus praeerat Halaricus, magna ex parte trucidatam reliquam suae subegeret40 dicioni. Nam praedicta gens, Ablavio istorico referente, iuxta Meotida palude41 inhabitans in locis stagnatibus42, quas43 Greci ele vocant, Eluri nominati sunt, gens quantum44 velox, eo amplius superbissima.

But, even though he45 was famous for the subjugation of so many peoples, he did not rest until he had massacred a great part of the people of the Heruls, led by Halaricus,46 and subjected the remainder to his authority. For, as the historian Ablabius says, the people just named are called Eluri, as they live next to the swamp of Maeotis, in inundated places, which the Greeks call ele.47 They are a people as haughty as they are swift. 39

See Heather 1991. subiceret: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 41 Maeotidem paludem: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 42 stagnantibus: Mommsen, Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 43 quae: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 44 quanto: Giunta–Grillone, Grillone. 45 Hermanaric, king of the Goths, who died in the wake of the Hunnic push East, c. 376: see PLRE I, 283; Wolfram 2009, 95–9. 46 Further unknown. 47 For a modern etymology from Er, the god of war, see Taylor 1990. 40

144 Ablabius Commentary Jacoby and Frakes print Jordanes, Getica 116–19 as F3, which would be most of Jordanes’ account of Hermanaric. Yet it has been shown by P. Heather that Jordanes constructed this narrative on the basis of the few things Ammianus Marcellinus (31.3.1–2) says about Hermanaric, augmented with sixth-century material.48 This passage, by contrast, has a link with Dexippus (see below). Moreover, Jordanes clearly attributes to Ablabius only the etymology of the Heruls. There is therefore no reason to attribute the surrounding Gothic material to Ablabius. The fragment again refers to the same region as F1 and F2 and is concerned with the same issues, namely the location and naming of barbarian tribes. The Heruls first entered the historical record when they sacked Athens in 268.49 After 450 they occupied territory in the Upper Danube region (the Lower Austrian and Moravian March), until they were defeated by the Langobards c. 508. They spread out over the region, with one group going to Italy, whilst another group was settled in Upper Moesia. They are also extensively attested as serving in the Roman army.50 After 550, they disappear from the record. A very similar etymology appears in the chronicle of Dexippus (written after 270).51 This has been used to argue for the dependency of Ablabius on Dexippus.52 Such a view has been rejected on the grounds that Ablabius could just as easily be recording general knowledge.53 That may be the case, but the Heruls were not universally located at Lake Maeotis: Procopius, Wars 6.14.1 simply situates them beyond the Danube River. It is noteworthy that Ablabius (F2) also knows about King Ostrogotha, who is, before Jordanes, only attested in Dexippus and Cassiodorus. In addition, the etymology is Greek, implying Ablabius’ acquaintance with the language and its literature. A dependence on Dexippus is, therefore, possible, if by no means demonstrated. This possibility raises, in turn, another, namely that Ablabius may be the intermediary through which Jordanes acquired his Dexippus-material;54 this would effectively be a return to older, maximalist interpretations of Ablabius. As noted above, there is little to support 48

Heather 1989. Dexippus FGrHist 100 F27, 29; Historia Augusta, Life of Claudius 6.2. 50 Lakatos 1978; Neumann and Taylor 1994; Sarantis 2010; Steinacher 2010. 51 FGrHist 100 F5 = BNJ 100 F5 = F18 Martin = F24 Mecella. See also Neumann and Taylor 1994, 468. 52 Mommsen 1882, xxxiii; Jacoby in FGrHist 100 F5; Gärtner 1973, 10; Zecchini 1993, 201–2; Amici 2002, 33–4. 53 Korkannen 1975, 17; Baldwin 1981, 144. 54 Schirren 1858, 42–4; Zecchini 1993, 202; Mecella 2013, 420. 49

Historia?

145

such an idea. In fact, the quotations from Ablabius do not occur in contexts where Jordanes made use of Dexippus. Getica 90–3 and 101–9 rely on Dexippus, with an explicit quotation in 113, whilst Ablabius is mentioned in 28, 82, and 117. This renders the maximalist thesis even more unlikely. Appendix Ablabius had a richer than expected afterlife among humanists. As Ablabius was identified as the Gothic author of a work on Gothic history or on the Gothic wars, it would seem that he was confused with Jordanes. It seems to have been common practice to cite material drawn from Jordanes under the name of Ablabius. This is done by Flavius Blondus (1392–1463) in his Decades,55 and by Antonius de Bonfinis (1434–1503) in the Rerum Ungaricarum decades. The latter’s citations of Ablabius are clearly an amalgam of Jordanes.56 In book 13 of the anthropologia section of his commentarii, Raphael Volaterranus (or, more prosaically, Maffei; 1451–1522) states that Ablabius was a Goth, educated in Ravenna, and that he scripsit de bello gothorum (‘He wrote about the war with the Goths’). Finally, Vossius (1577–1649) expresses doubts as to whether his predecessors actually read Ablabius directly. Besides Maffei, he refers to Pantaleon Candidus (1540–1608), who, he says, claimed to have used Ablabius for the earlier part of his De viris illustribus Germaniae. Vossius notes that he did not know of any extant work by Ablabius.57 Interest in Ablabius did not, however, commence with humanism: in a letter from the collection of Tegernsee, dating to the end of the twelfth century, the correspondent is asked to find a couple of works, including Blavium de gestis Gottorum.58 Medieval and humanistic scholars, then, made hypotheses about Ablabius similar to those proposed by modern scholars: Ablabius as a possible Goth, an historian of the Goths, and a major source for Jordanes. 55

Buchholz 1882, 24–5, 131–2, corrected by Mommsen 1882, xxxvii n. 70. Antonius de Bonfinis, Rerum Ungaricarum decades 1.2.177, 1.2.227, 1.4.115 (Fogel, Ivanyi, and Juhasz 1936, 54.3, 58.32, 88.15). 57 Vossius 1627, 617–18. 58 Marcellinus Comes, FHistLA 16 T3, below p. 192. 56

14

Symmachus the Younger History

Previous edition: HRR II 156–8. Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus is the last important member of the family of the Symmachi to appear in our records. The great-grandson of Q. Aurelius Symmachus, the well-known author of letters,1 he was praefectus urbi for some period between 476 and 491, consul in 485, and was awarded the honorary title of patricius before 510.2 On the orders of Theoderic, he was arrested and executed on charges of treason in 525, shortly after his son-in-law Boethius. He was a learned man, a Christian, and well-connected in the literary circles of the East and West: the Constantinopolitan grammarian Priscian as well as Boethius dedicated works to him.3 He corrected a copy of Macrobius’ commentary on the Somnium Scipionis,4 and the Anecdoton Holderi (T1) attributes to him a discourse Pro allecticiis (see T1 below) and his History. Symmachus wrote a history of Rome, in seven books (T1), which covered, among other things, the reign of Maximinus Thrax (235–8) in book 5 (F1). Contrary to what is generally assumed, its title is unlikely to have been Historia Romana, but was probably simply Historia.5 We do not know its starting or end points, but if Symmachus conformed to the habits of later Latin historiography, he probably began with the foundation of Rome and ended with his own times (see below F1). The date of publication is

1

PLRE I, 865–71 (5); Sogno 2006. On his life, see PLRE II, 1044–6 (9); Wes 1967, 89–148; Natal 2018b. Boethius, Institutio arithmetica 3.13 Friedlein; Priscian, De figuris numerorum, De metris Terentii, Praeexercitamina (Passalacqua 1987; cf. Wes 1967, 97). 4 Cf. PLRE II, 1044. 5 See below on T1. 2 3

146



Symmachus the Younger

147

unknown. Given the moderately pro-Gothic tendency of F1,6 it is logical to suppose a date after Theoderic’s takeover of Italy, which was in his hands from 493 onwards. If one accepts that Cassiodorus (FHistLA 17) quoted the history in his History of the Goths (which is likely: see below), Symmachus must have written before him (the termini of the History of the Goths are 515–26). Otherwise the terminus ante quem is Symmachus’ death in 525.7 There is no reliable way to determine a more precise date between these termini. Symmachus used the Historia Augusta and Orosius as sources for F1. For the modern scholar, this may inspire little confidence in its accuracy, but we should keep in mind that, by the fifth century, third-century history was badly documented, with the breviaria or Jerome’s Chronicle being the main sources available. The latter was used by Orosius. As far as Symmachus is concerned, F1 suggests that Orosius provided the framework to which the more extensive material from the Historia Augusta was added. If this pattern can be generalized, the work must have looked like an expanded breviarium. Furthermore, if F1 is a reliable guide, the history proceeded emperor by emperor for the Imperial period, which would be in line with the general tendency of Imperial historiography.8 The testimony and the fragment both appear in relation to Cassiodorus. Cassiodorus is the author of the work from which the Anecdoton Holderi was excerpted (T1), whilst the Getica by Jordanes, in which F1 appears, is an updated résumé of Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths. It is likely that Jordanes cited Symmachus from Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths, implying that there may never have been a copy of Symmachus’ work in Constantinople. But if Jordanes did have access to Symmachus’ work, the most likely assumption is that Cassiodorus brought the work to Constantinople, where Jordanes borrowed it from his personal library.9 This pattern of limited circulation

6

Wes 1967, 114 argues that Symmachus had a negative view of barbarians, but see the commentary of F1. 7 Adherents of the thesis of Ensslin 1949, according to which Symmachus was the main source of Marcellinus Comes, put forward a publication date of 519, when the first edition of Marcellinus was published (Wes 1967, 173; Zecchini 1993, 85; Festy 2003 and 2014, 244; Girotti 2009, 237; Savino 2017, 37). The thesis of Ensslin, and hence the associated dating, should be rejected: see below p. 148. 8 Wes 1967, 116 and Luiselli 1975, 533 argue that the work was biographical in nature. The first justifies this with reference to Aurelius Victor, the second with reference to Cassius Dio: these are in fact not biographies, but histories structured around emperors, which is indeed the general tendency of Imperial historiography: Zimmermann 1999. 9 Cf. Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 283–90.

148

Symmachus the Younger

is found in many of the works collected in this volume and suggests that we should avoid overestimating the impact of the history of Symmachus.10 Together with Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths and Chronicle, the history of Symmachus is evidence of the fact that the writing of history was an intellectual pursuit worthy of the highest elite in Italy under Gothic rule. Both authors expressed views favourable to the Goths. Literary activity was favoured by the Gothic court,11 and there is also some, albeit not uncontested, evidence for the court’s interest in geography.12

The Romana of Jordanes and Symmachus In 1949, W. Ensslin argued that Jordanes’ Romana (a summary of world and Roman history until 551, composed in Constantinople) derives almost entirely from Symmachus, except for the passages about the Creation and Adam.13 This maximalist thesis is rarely accepted nowadays,14 and Ensslin tacitly abandoned it.15 Yet, the assumption that parts of Jordanes’ Romana derive from Symmachus is still widespread, and usually justified with reference to Ensslin.16 Even in its weaker form, the thesis is too fragile to command assent. 10

Cf. Croke 1983; Heather 1993, 332. Festy 2014 claims to have found passages from Symmachus in the historiae imperiales by G. de Matociis (fourteenth century). This is very unlikely. Symmachus is never mentioned in these passages, which are attributed to Priscus and Jordanes instead. The argument relies on a number of problematic assumptions: (1) a maximalist version of Ensslin’s thesis of 1949, implying that Jordanes quoted Priscus through Symmachus in the Getica and not directly or through Cassiodorus; (2) that de Matociis possessed Symmachus and sometimes chose to cite him as Jordanes, (3) whilst on other occasions he copied the reference to Priscus from Symmachus without mentioning the latter; and (4) that a copy of Symmachus would have survived until the fourteenth century. Assumption (1) is demonstrably wrong (see below p. 152; Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b). It is very unlikely that Symmachus’ history would have survived so late (assumption 4), but it is simply strange that de Matociis would have decided to cite him as Jordanes (assumption 2). Assumption 3 is possible and in line with ancient practice. At any rate, Symmachus is never cited by de Matociis. More research is needed on his use of sources before we can accept any attribution (even to Priscus). 11 Barnish 1990; Heather 1993, 332–5; Vitiello 2014a, 43–5, 48–50. 12 Staab 1967. 13 Ensslin built on the ideas of Mommsen 1894a, 54. 14 For criticism see, Lavarenne 1950; Luiselli 1976; Várady 1976; Croke 1983, 95–115; Coumert 2007, 76–8. 15 Ensslin 1956, 510, where he states that Jordanes (Romana 345) used Marcellinus Comes (Chronicle a. 476) directly – a possibility he had excluded in 1949. 16 Hartke 1950; Momigliano 1960b, 248; Nagy 1967, who seeks to show that Symmachus was also a source for Cassiodorus; Wes 1967, 111–22, arguing that Symmachus covered history until 519; Schlumberger 1974, 248; Luiselli 1976, 106–7; Schwartz 1983; Gusso 1995, 570; Ratti 1996, 177; Amici 2002, 8–11; Festy 1999, lxii–lxiii; 2003; and 2014; Baldini 2004, 241–52 and 2007; Zecchini 1983, 63, 95; 1993, 62–4; 2009; and 2011, 206, who speculates that Procopius had used Symmachus; Girotti 2009, 404–24; Vitiello 2015, 206.

The Romana of Jordanes and Symmachus

149

Ensslin based his argument on the following observations. (1) In Mommsen’s edition of the Romana, there are many passages that cannot be ascribed to a known source, marked Ignotus by Mommsen. (2) Other passages appear to be based on the collation of a number of sources. For Romana 314–18, for example, Mommsen indicates the Ecclesiastical history of Socrates, Marcellinus Comes, the Epitome de Caesaribus, and Orosius. (3) Jordanes knew of the history of Symmachus, as F1, drawn from his other work, the Getica, shows. These observations may have been sound in 1949, but Ensslin worked with an assumption so typical of early twentieth-century scholarship that he never sought to justify it: that Jordanes was not capable of combining different sources himself.17 Such an assumption seems to find some justification in the fact that for long stretches of Republican history the Romana tends to follow a single text as the main source (either Florus or Festus). Ensslin then jumped to the conclusion that the Romana is an epitome of Symmachus as much as the Getica would be an epitome of the History of the Goths of Cassiodorus. Most scholars reject this maximalist conclusion and accept that Jordanes used Marcellinus Comes, Jerome, Orosius, and many other sources directly.18 Yet many are still willing to identify Symmachean material in the passages that Mommsen attributed to Ignotus or in passages where different sources are compiled.19 This assumption, however, is very fragile: it can be challenged both on methodological grounds and on precise points of identification. Let us start with three methodological problems. (1) If one rejects Ensslin’s sweeping conclusion and accepts that Jordanes used many sources directly, it becomes hard to see why unidentified passages and composite passages should not be his own work. Indeed, in the Getica, Jordanes 17

Ensslin 1949, 19: ‘Hier mag man fragen, ob eine solche Arbeitsweise dem Jordanes gehoren kann’; 26 ‘… wieder fragen müssen, ob in der Tat Jordanes selbst diese Exzerpte zu einem Ganzen vereinigt hat oder nicht doch schon auf weite Strecken eine mit den genannten Quellen arbeitende Vorlage vor sich gehabt hat.’ Repeated by Festy 2014, 246: ‘Qui peut sérieusement croire que, pour rédiger d’aussi courtes notices, Jordanès se soit reporté à chacune de ces sources pour en tirer seulement quelques mots?’ Cf. Van Nuffelen 2012a, 93 for such views about Orosius. The rhetorical question should be reversed: why should we assume that Jordanes was unable to do so? For different views of Jordanes, see Girotti 2009; Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. 18 The argument was first made by Luiselli 1976, 83–108 and further developed by Várady 1976; Croke 1983, 95–115. Scholars still favouring a usage of Symmachus by Jordanes now tend to accept only accessory usage, in addition to the main sources (e.g. Gusso 1995, 570; Festy 2003, 253 – even if Festy 2003 and 2014 is still very close to the maximalist position, even suggesting widespread use of Symmachus in the Getica). For the sources of Jordanes, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hood 2020b. 19 E.g. Luiselli 1976, 106–7; Festy 2003.

150

Symmachus the Younger

also follows one main source (Cassiodorus), to which he adds material from many other sources.20 Why would he – on top of his main sources Marcellinus Comes, Jerome, Festus, and Florus – use only one additional source, Symmachus, in the Romana? In fact, the methodologically correct assumption is that if a passage can be explained by Jordanes’ own recourse to known sources, there is no need to hypothesize an unknown source.21 (2) If one accepts an even weaker version of Ensslin’s thesis, namely that Symmachus was only one of a series of additional sources used in the Romana (and not the single source for all the material not deriving from Jordanes’ main sources), we no longer have criteria to identify the passages of the Romana that would derive from Symmachus. Indeed, attributions tend to be made by relying on assumptions: for example, that passages of a certain character (e.g. those on early Rome22) which we cannot attribute to a known source must derive from Symmachus. Such assumptions cannot be proven, as we know too little about Symmachus’ history. Moreover, as we shall see below, identifications of sources can be made in passages that Mommsen attributed to Ignotus, showing that such assumptions are indeed baseless. One cannot, then, reconstruct a fragmentary work on the basis of such speculation. (3) Accepting the use of Symmachus in the Romana entails the need for problematic auxiliary hypotheses. Jordanes cites Symmachus in the Getica (F1), which summarizes and updates the History of the Goths of Cassiodorus. This may imply that Jordanes got to know Symmachus’ work through the history of Cassiodorus. Ensslin extrapolated from this that Jordanes looked up Symmachus after he had read about him in Cassiodorus and then used him independently for his Romana.23 This creates a problem which Ensslin did not address. Jordanes explicitly states (Getica 1) that he interrupted his work on the Romana to write the Getica. We do not know how far advanced he was in its composition, but the Romana had certainly been partially researched before Jordanes got to know of Symmachus. If one follows Ensslin, one needs to accept that Jordanes started all over again with the aim of copying Symmachus. But if he did so, why did he not acknowledge in his preface that he offered a summary of Symmachus, just as he acknowledged his debt to Cassiodorus in the preface to the Getica? At best, the scenario envisaged 20

Cf. Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b for an exposé of Jordanes’ historical method. E.g. Zecchini 1993, 73–83 points to Getica 243 and Romana 345 as coming from Symmachus, but they clearly derive from Marcellinus Comes (Chronicle a. 476). 22 E.g. Jordanes, Romana 51. 23 Ensslin 1949, 8. Cf. Usener 1877, 29; Hartke 1951, 427–39; Wes 1967, 111.

21

The Romana of Jordanes and Symmachus

151

by Ensslin allows for Symmachus to have been used as an auxiliary source. The alternative scenario is that Jordanes had independent knowledge of Symmachus. This necessitates the hypothesis that Symmachus’ work was sent to Constantinople,24 or more radically, that it was written in Constantinople.25 Such a reconstruction disregards the fact that the History of Symmachus only appears in the context of Cassiodorean material, that is, the Ordo generis Cassiodororum and the Getica of Jordanes. This suggests, rather, that it was Cassiodorus who brought knowledge of Symmachus’ history to Constantinople. He even need not have carried a copy to Constantinople, for Jordanes may simply have cited it from Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths.26 In brief, the pattern of circulation suggested by the testimony and the fragment contradicts the idea of a wide circulation – a pattern that is observed in many of the works collected in this volume: circulation was often very limited and related to a circle of acquaintances. It is not without irony that those willing to champion Jordanes’ inability to look up and combine different sources which we know circulated widely accept that he would have been able to find an obscure Roman history. Finally, in order to explain the clear parallels between Marcellinus Comes and Jordanes from 395 until 534, the acceptance of Ensslin’s thesis also necessitates accepting that Jordanes used Symmachus for events up to 519, that Marcellinus Comes used Symmachus for that same period,27 and that Jordanes did not use Marcellinus Comes for events before 519 but started using him for those up to 534.28 It is more logical to assume that he also used Marcellinus Comes for events predating 519. These methodological considerations help to show the problematic assumptions underpinning Ensslin’s hypothesis and its contemporary reconfigurations, but they may not convince those willing to speculate. Identifications of the sources of passages attributed to Symmachus may be harder to disregard. 24

Callu 1985, 115–16; Zecchini 2011, 206. Festy 2003, 255 and 2014, 228–30 (followed by Vitiello 2015, 201) argues that Symmachus came to Constantinople in 519 and wrote his history there. Because the history is interpreted to be critical of Theoderic, Festy states it was banned and was one of the reasons for Symmachus’ later arrest and execution. Each of these statements is conjecture, not fact. 26 Callu 1985 and 1992, lxxiv and Festy 2003 both assume that the Historia Augusta was also sent to Constantinople to allow Jordanes to use it. There is nothing to support such a hypothesis (cf. Lippold 1991, 176; Zecchini 1993, 48; Girotti 2009, 414), even if it has been suggested that the Historia Augusta was written in Constantinople: Gaillard-Seux 2015, 276. 27 This idea is, at any rate, untenable: Croke 1995 and 2001a. 28 On Marcellinus Comes, see Croke 2001a. 25

152

Symmachus the Younger

In our translation of Jordanes’ Romana, we have offered identifications for certain passages attributed by Mommsen to an unknown source.29 In the first 84 chapters, which cover world history until Augustus, the main additional source used to augment Jerome seems to have been a Greek chronicle.30 That the Roman History of Symmachus would also have covered such material31 is unlikely given its identification as a Roman history. What follows in chapters 85 to 254 of Jordanes’ Romana is, except for some minor details, securely attributed to Florus and Festus. From Romana 255 onwards, Jordanes’ discussion of the Empire relies on a variety of sources, especially Jerome, Eutropius, Orosius, and Festus. Chapters 310 to 318 (the reigns of Valens and Theodosius I) stand out, in that Jordanes used the Epitome de Caesaribus in addition to Jerome and Orosius. Moreover, Mommsen attributed some passages there to the Greek Ecclesiastical history of Socrates. After these, the main sources are Marcellinus Comes (until 534) and the so-called Common source of the Continuation of Marcellinus Comes and Jordanes.32 Chapters 310–18 (the reigns of Valens and Theodosius I) are the stronghold of those who assume a use of Symmachus, for there Jordanes relies on a great number of sources, including, according to Mommsen, the Greek Ecclesiastical history of Socrates. According to Festy 2003, parallels with the Epitome de Caesaribus in Romana 315–18 (the reign of Theodosius I) indicate that these chapters derive entirely from Symmachus, because Jordanes did not use the Epitome directly but through Symmachus.33 In fact, we have been able to show that Romana 314–19 is an amalgam of the Epitome de Caesaribus, Orosius, Marcellinus Comes,34 and the Historia tripartita of Cassiodorus.35 As this last work was undoubtedly composed after Symmachus’ death, that is, between 544/5 and 551,36 Romana 315–18 cannot derive entirely from Symmachus as posited by Festy. This proves a central assumption of Ensslin’s and Festy’s wrong, namely that Romana 310–59 derives entirely from Symmachus. One might argue that the information 29

Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. Várady 1976; Croke 1983, 109. As assumed by Ensslin 1949, 13–26. 32 Cf. Croke 2001a, 228–32. 33 Festy 2003, 253: ‘Chez Jordanes, le récit des règnes de Théodose, Arcadius et Honorius provient entièrement de Symmaque.’ Similarly, Ensslin 1949, 60–88; Callu 1985, 94, 99–100; Festy 1999, lxii: ‘… les paragraphes 314 et 315 des Romana reposent sur un amalgame d’Orose et de l’Epitome qui ne peut provenir que de Memmius Symmachus’. 34 See the notes in Mommsen 1882, 40. 35 Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 285–8. 36 Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 288. 30 31

Historia

153

not deriving from the Historia tripartita can still derive from Symmachus, to which Jordanes would have added material from Cassiodorus. Yet, given the way the material from the Historia tripartita is blended with that from other sources, the passage must be an original composition by Jordanes. Indeed, all of the sources used in these chapters have now been identified. They are texts that Jordanes uses elsewhere in his oeuvre (Marcellinus Comes, Orosius), and that were accessible through his contact with Cassiodorus (Historia tripartita) or available in Constantinople (Epitome de Caesaribus,37 Marcellinus Comes, Historia tripartita, Orosius). These chapters must be Jordanes’ own work. There will always be unidentified material in the Romana, but the more of it we are able to identify, the less room there is for Symmachus.38 Accepting the presence of Symmachus in the Romana relies on outdated assumptions about Jordanes’ working method, requires a series of problematic supporting hypotheses, and is proven to be mistaken by new identifications of sources. It can safely be abandoned.

Historia T1: Ordo generis Cassiodororum (Anecdoton Holderi) ll. 5–8 (Galonnier 1996, 306; cf. Usener 1877, 80; Mommsen 1894b, v–vi; Fridh 1973, v; O’Donnell 1979, 260; Viscido 1992, 38) Symmachus patricius et consul ordinarius vir philosophus qui antiqui Catonis fuit novellus imitator sed virtutes veterum sanctissima religione 37

Jakobi 2012, 126–9 has shown that Marcellinus Comes used the Epitome de Caesaribus. John the Lydian, On the magistracies 2.3 cites, in Latin, a judgement on Augustus that is very close to the one found in Epitome de Caesaribus 1.28 and in all likelihood he knew this work (Dubuisson and Schamp 2006, ccclxxvi). Festy 1999, lxii–lxiii prefers to assume recourse to a shared source. This conjecture is only necessary if one wishes to deny that Jordanes could have used the Epitome. 38 There is one issue that needs to be briefly addressed. Jordanes, Getica 178 (compago ita solidum mentiebatur …) uses an expression that is exactly the same as one used in Symmachus, Letter 1.12 (conpago solidum mentiebatur). On the basis of this, Callu 1985, 107 suggests a reliance on Symmachus the Younger (cf. Festy 2003, 255), who would have cited his great-grandfather. The coincidence is tantalizing, but cannot bear the weight that Callu puts on it. There is no proof that Symmachus was used as a source elsewhere in the Getica (except in 83–8). Moreover, Getica 178 is a quotation from Priscus. Use of Symmachus there necessitates the assumption that Jordanes quotes Priscus via Symmachus (cf. Clover 1973, 112; rejected by Zecchini 1983, 91), which in turn renders it necessary that substantial portions of the Getica, where Priscan-material is used, derive from Symmachus. This runs counter to what the rest of our evidence suggests, for the sources used by Jordanes (see above and Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b) and his use of Symmachus in particular. Here we may simply be dealing with a standard expression.

154

Symmachus the Younger

transcendit dixit sententiam pro alecticiis in senatu; parentesque suos imitatus historiam quoque Romanam septem libris edidit.

Symmachus, patrician and consul ordinarius,39 a philosophical man, who was a new follower of Cato of old but surpassed the virtues of the ancients by means of our sacred religion, spoke in favour of those who had been adlected40 in the senate. In imitation of his ancestors he also published a Roman history in seven books.

Commentary The Anecdoton Holderi is a series of excerpts from a lost work of Cassiodorus, which the excerptor calls Ordo generis Cassiodor(i)orum (qui scriptores extiterint ex eorum progenie vel quibus eruditis) (‘The list of the family of the Cassiodori (which writers descend from their family and from which scholars [they derive])’). It contains brief profiles of Boethius, Symmachus, and Cassiodorus himself.41 Alan Cameron argues that it was just the heading for a family tree,42 but it is more plausible to see it as part of Cassiodorus’ re-establishment of his links with Boethius and Symmachus, the two victims of Theoderic’s later, and, in the eyes of the 39

Symmachus was consul in 485 and was patrician by 510: see above p. 146. The meaning of pro allecticiis is uncertain, as the term is a hapax. Viscido 1992, 47 reviews past interpretations and rejects the idea that this was a speech in favour of ‘co-opted senators’. Gallonier 1996, 307 identifies them as the candidates for adlectio to the senate or as senators who had been adlected on the basis of having served as magistrates. According to Jones 1964, 541, adlectio, the Imperial privilege of adlecting ‘a man direct into the senate with appropriate seniority’ (ranking with ex-praetors or ex-consuls), survived in Late Antiquity only ‘as a device for enrolling a senator among those who had performed their praetorian games’. Such games could be a serious financial burden, and there were attempts to evade the charge (Giglio 2007). Jones notes that such exemptions through adlectio were, in principle, only granted to palatine civil servants. If we take the term allecticius to be formed in line with terms such as dediticius (‘the one who has surrendered’), the term should mean ‘the one who has been adlected’. That a speech in their support was necessary may suggest an attempt to curtail the privilege or a conflict with senators who were not exempted. For games in Ostrogothic Italy, see Anonymus Valesianus II 60, 67; Cassiodorus, Variae 1.20, 1.27, 1.30–2, 6.15, with Arnold 2014, 213–15. 41 If the family relation between Boethius and Symmachus is obvious, that of Cassiodorus to both is somewhat more tenuous (see PLRE II, 1322; Cameron 2012a, 159–64). 42 Cameron 2012a, 159–64. 40

Historia

155

East, tyrannical, years. Cassiodorus would have stressed these relationships after 540, when he was settled in Constantinople.43 The section on Symmachus is the shortest of the three parts of the Ordo generis Cassiodororum, and lists only two works, both of which are lost. This contrasts with the greater number of works listed for Boethius and Cassiodorus, which are also preserved or better attested. Historia Romana is generally taken to be a title,44 which it most likely is not. In the Anecdoton only one title is cited and designated as such: formulas dictionum, quas in duodecim libris ordinavit et Variarum titulum superposuit (‘the formularies of the pronouncements, which he ordered in twelve books and to which he gave the title Variae’).45 The description of the content of a work may be close to its title, as in the case of the Liber contra Eutychen et Nestorium by Boethius, which in the Anecdoton appears as follows: librum contra Nestorium condidit.46 In the case of Symmachus’ history, however, F1 simply calls the work historia, and such a generic title would be more in line with late antique practice47 than the more specific Historia Romana, which is first attested for Paul the Deacon at the end of the eighth century. The specification that Symmachus wrote a historia Romana is probably triggered by the fact that the Anecdoton lists Cassiodorus’ own history and notes that it was a historia Gothica.48 As T1 makes clear, the history was in seven books, and as F1 informs us, Maximinus Thrax (235–8) was discussed in book 5. For the implications of this, see the commentary on F1. The Anecdoton depicts Symmachus’ historiographical activity as following in the wake of that of his ancestors. This is usually understood as a 43

Milazzo 1993; Björnlie 2013, 147–62; Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 293. Cf. Vitiello 2006a, 215–22. The date of this work has been much discussed and depends on the date of the Variae of Cassiodorus, which it mentions. For a date after 534, see Mommsen 1894b, xi. After 537, see Barnish 1984, 336–7. After 538, see Momigliano 1960a, 205; Troncarelli 1989, 130; Viscido 1992, 22; Silvestre 1997, 93. Usener 1877, 73 argued for 521–2, O’Donnell 1979, 265 for 527–33. Christensen 2002, 69 suggests that the work may be interpolated, but as we cannot identify what may have been interpolated, this does not help us much. Cameron 2012a, 162 argues that the work must predate Cassiodorus’ ‘conversion’ (which he dates to c. 550) because it mentions his official titles. The argument has little strength. Bjornlie 2013, 159–62 has now proposed a substantially later date for the Variae (the late 540s), which would push the date of the Anecdoton even later. 44 E.g. Ensslin 1949; Luiselli 1975, 534; PLRE II, 1046; Zecchini 1983, 89 and 1993, 62; Festy 1999, lxii and 2014; Baldini 2009. 45 Galonnier 1996, 306 ll. 19–20. 46 Galonnier 1996, 306 l. 12, with the commentary on the identification of the works of Boethius described in the Anecdoton. See also our discussion of Cassiodorus (FHistLA 17). 47 See e.g. the Histories of Orosius and Gregory of Tours; the res gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus. 48 Galonnier 1996, 306 l. 21.

156

Symmachus the Younger

reference to the history of Nicomachus Flavianus,49 whose son had married into the family of the Symmachi. It has been suggested that parentes has a wider meaning and might refer to other people, as well.50 The father of Q. Aurelius Symmachus, the letter-writer, seems to have composed a series of brief biographies in verse.51 Q. Aurelius Symmachus himself, one of our author’s direct forebears, had the history of Livy copied and corrected, as did the son and grandson of Nicomachus Flavianus.52 As Alan Cameron has argued, such activity reflects the normal process when a text was copied for an acquaintance,53 and should not be interpreted as a specifically historiographical interest. We cannot know what specifically the Ordo generis Cassiodororum means when referring to parentes, but it is clear that an interest in historiographical texts and their production was part of the senatorial habitus around AD 400.54 On the basis of this testimony, Vitiello 2008 suggests that Symmachus consciously modelled himself on the two Catones and is willing to speculate that he modelled his seven books on the history of Cato the Elder.55 The argument is implausible, as there is no evidence that Symmachus himself and not Cassiodorus is responsible for the association with Cato. Though Cato the Elder was a paragon of Roman virtue, the reference may well be to Cato the Younger, who was the traditional exemplum of someone who refused to sacrifice his principles to compromise with tyrants56 – an elegant way to allude both to Symmachus’ execution in 525 and to avoid discussing the charges of treason that brought it to pass.57 This fits well with the interpretation of the Ordo generis Cassiodororum as a work by which Cassiodorus sought to align himself with the Eastern view of the final years 49

Matthews 1975, 231; O’Donnell 1979, 262; Galonnier 1996, 307; Zecchini 2009, 92; Ratti 2011, 219; Cameron 2012a, 163. See above Nicomachus Flavianus (FHistLA 3). 50 Vitiello 2015, 200; cf. HRR II, ccv–ccvi. Expanding on Momigliano 1960b, Zecchini 1983, 90 argues that Symmachus belonged to the famous family of the Anicii, to whom he attributes a coherent policy (pro-Catholic and pro-papal, pro-Aetius, and pro-barbarian). An Anician link has been thoroughly deconstructed by Cameron 2012a, 154–6 and needs no further discussion here. 51 CHAP s.v. Symmachus and Avianius and above p. 20. 52 Nicomachus Flavianus (PLRE I, 345–7 (14)) and Appius Nicomachus Dexter (PLRE II, 357 (3)). It has been speculated that the son of Nicomachus Flavianus was the author of the Historia Augusta: Festy 2004. 53 Cameron 2011, 498–516. 54 See introduction p. 20. 55 FRHist 5. 56 There are many late antique references to Cato, see Merobaudes, Panegyric 1.F1A l. 11; Boethius, Consolation of philosophy 4.6.33; Ennodius, Life of Epiphanius 135; Cassiodorus, Variae 1.27.5, 2.3.4, Panegyric of Theoderic 30. 57 For an example of how this was done in Christian discourse, see Dionysius Exiguus, Life of Saint Pachomius, pr. (Van Cranenburgh 1969, 79).

Historia

157

of Theoderic. Moreover, the reference to Cato also serves to highlight how Symmachus surpassed him by being a Christian. Similarly, Boethius is also positively compared to the antiquos auctores.58 F1: Jordanes, Getica 15.83–8 (Mommsen 1882, 78.9–80.13; cf. Giunta and Grillone 1991, 38.6–40.19 = Grillone 2017, 73–9) 83 Et quia59 iam superius diximus eos transito Danubio aliquantum temporis in Mysiam60 Thraciamque61 vixisse, ex eorum reliquiis fuit et Maximinus, imperator post Alexandrum Mamaeae62. Nam, ut dicit Symmachus in quinto suae historiae libro, Maximinus, inquiens, Caesar mortuo Alexandro ab exercitu effectus est imperator, ex infimis parentibus in Thracia natus, a patre Gotho nomine Micca, matre Halana63, quae Ababa dicebatur. Is triennio regnans, dum in Christianos arma commo­ veret, imperium simul et vitam amisit. 84 Nam hic Severo imperatore re­gnante et natalis die64 filii celebrante, post prima aetate et rusticana vita65 de pascuis in militiam venit. Princeps si quidem militares dederat ludos; quod cernens Maximinus, quamvis semibarbarus aduliscens, propositis praemiis patria lingua petit66 ab imperatore, ut sibi luctandi cum expertis militibus licentiam daret. 85 Severus, ammodum miratus magnitudinem formae (erat enim, ut fertur, statura eius procera ultra octo pedes) iussit eum lixis corporis nexu67 contendere, ne quid a rudi homine milita­ ribus viris eveniret iniuriae. Tum Maximinus sedecim lixas tanta felicitate prostravit, ut vincendo singulos nullam sibi requiem per intercapidinem temporis daret. Hic68 captis praemiis iussus in militiam mitti, primaque ei stipendia equestria fuere. Tertia post haec die, cum imperator prodiret ad campum, vidit eum exultantem more barbarico iussitque tribuno, ut eum cohercitum ad Romanam inbueret disciplinam. Ille vero, ubi de se intellexit principem loqui, accessit ad eum equitantemque praeire pedibus coepit. 86 Tum imperator equo ad lentum cursum calcaribus incitato 58

Ordo generis Cassiodororum l. 14 (Galonnier 1996, 306). quidem Giunta–Grillone. Moesia Giunta–Grillone. 61 Thraciaque Giunta–Grillone. 62 Alexandrum Mamaeae filium, ut dicit … Giunta–Grillone. 63 Alana Giunta–Grillone. 64 natalem diem Giunta–Grillone. 65 primam aetatem et rusticanam vitam Giunta–Grillone. 66 petiit Giunta–Grillone. 67 cum lixis corporis nexu Giunta–Grillone. 68 Hinc Giunta–Grillone. 59

60

158

Symmachus the Younger

multos urbes69 huc atque illuc usque ad suam defatigationem variis defle­ xibus impedivit ac deinde ait illi: ‘Num quid vis post cursum, Thracisce, luctare?’ Respondit: ‘Quantum libet, imperator70.’ Ita Severus, ex equo desiliens, recentissimos militum cum eo decertari iussit. At ille septem valentissimos iuvenes ad terram elisit, ita ut antea nihil per intervalla re­spiraret, solusque a Caesare et argenteis praemiis et aureo torque donatus est; iussus deinde inter stipatores degere71 corporis principalis72. 87 Post haec sub Antonino Caracalla ordines duxit ac saepe famam factis exten­ dens plures militiae grados centuriatumque strenuitatis suae praetium tulit. Macrino tamen postea in regno ingresso recusavit militiam pene triennio, tribunatusque habens honore73 numquam se oculis Macrini optulit, indi­ gnum ducens eius imperium, qui74 perpetrato facinus75 fuerat adquisitum. 88 Ad Eliogabalum dehinc quasi ad Antonini filium revertens tribunatum suum adiit et post hunc sub Alexandrum76 Mamaeae contra Parthos mirabiliter dimicavit. Eoque Mogontiaco militari tumulto occiso ipse exercitus electione absque senatus consultu effectus est imperator, qui cuncta bona sua in persecutione Christianorum malo voto foedavit, occisusque Aquileia a Puppione, regnum reliquid Philippo. Quod nos idcirco huic nostro opusculo de Symmachi hystoria mutuavimus, quatenus gentem, unde agimus, ostenderemus ad regni Romani fastigium usque venisse.

83 And as we have already said above, they77 lived for a while in Mysia and Thrace78 after crossing the Danube. One of their descendants was Maximinus, emperor after Alexander, the son of Mamaea.79 For, as 69

Lege orbes. imperatori Giunta–Grillone. 71 decore Giunta–Grillone. 72 … astare Giunta–Grillone. 73 honorem Giunta–Grillone. 74 quod Giunta–Grillone. 75 facinore Giunta–Grillone. 76 Alexandro Giunta–Grillone. 77 I.e. the Goths. 78 I.e. Moesia. 79 Maximinus Thrax, emperor 235–8; Alexander Severus, emperor 222–35; Julia Mamaea, lived c. 180–235. Vitiello 2015, 203 argues that the expression Alexander Mamaeae is absent from this section in the Life of the Two Maximini and hence taken by Symmachus from a Greek source. Yet it is present in Life of Alexander Severus 5.2 and Life of Carinus 3.4. Hence there is no reason to think this shows the direct influence of an unknown Greek source: Symmachus found it in the Historia Augusta. The longer version (Alexander Mammaeae filius) is very common (cf. Jerome, Chronicle 296i; Jordanes, Romana 280). 70

Historia

159

Symmachus tells in the fifth book of his history: Maximinus Caesar, he says, was made emperor by the army after the death of Alexander.80 He was born in Thrace to lowly parents, to a Gothic father named Micca and an Alan mother called Ababa.81 Ruling for three years, he lost the Empire along with his life when he began a war on the Christians.82 84 Now, he entered the army from the fields, after his childhood and a rustic life, when Emperor Severus was ruling and celebrating the birthday of his son.83 For the emperor had organized military games. Noticing this, and with the prizes on display, Maximinus, although something of a barbarian young man, demanded of the emperor in his mother tongue, that he allow him to fight with experienced soldiers.84 85 Severus, quite impressed by his stature (for he was more than eight feet tall, so it is said85), ordered him to try himself against some camp-followers in wrestling, so that no injury would befall his soldiers from an uncouth man. Maximinus then floored sixteen camp-followers so successfully, that he overcame each of them without granting himself any rest by taking a break. Having won the prizes he was ordered to be drafted into the army, and his first assignment was with the cavalry.86 On the third day after this, 87 when the emperor went out to the exercise field, he saw him revelling in a barbarian way and ordered a tribune to restrain him and instruct him in Roman discipline. Maximinus, however, when he understood that the emperor was talking about him, approached him and started to run before the mounted emperor on foot.88 86 Then the emperor spurred his horse to a slow trot, and made many rounds hither and thither, 89 with many turns until he himself got tired. Subsequently he said to him: ‘You wouldn’t be up for some wrestling after the running, little Thracian, would you?’ He responded: ‘As much as it pleases you, Emperor.’ Dismounting from his horse, Severus ordered the freshest soldiers to fight with him. But he threw seven of the strongest recruits to the ground without pausing to take a breath before doing so. He alone was gifted by Caesar with both silver prizes and a golden torques. He was then ordered to become a member of the Imperial 80

Orosius, Histories 7.19.1–2. Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 1.5–6. 82 Orosius, Histories 7.19.1–2. 83 Septimius Severus, emperor 193–211. The son is Geta, emperor 209–11. 84 Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 2.1–5. 85 Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 6.8. 86 Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 2.2, 2.6–7. 87 i.e. on the second day, according to the Roman practice of inclusive reckoning. 88 Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 3.1. 89 Cf. Vergil, Aeneid 5.584. 81

160

Symmachus the Younger

bodyguards.90 87 After this, under Antoninus Caracalla,91 he led regiments and often increased his renown through his deeds.92 As prizes for his efforts he acquired numerous military ranks and the centuriate. When Macrinus subsequently began to reign,93 he refused service for almost three years and, although he had the position of tribune, he never came into the sight of Macrinus, considering his rule unworthy because it had been acquired through a crime.94 88 To Heliogabalus, then, he returned as if he were a son of Antoninus and he assumed his tribunate. After this, he fought marvellously against the Parthians under Alexander, son of Mamaea.95 When Alexander had been killed in a military uprising in Mainz, he was made emperor by the choice of the army without a decision of the senate. He disgraced all his good qualities by persecuting the Christians on account of an evil resolution. Killed in Aquileia by Pupienus, he left the Empire to Philipp.96 This we have borrowed for our little work from the history of Symmachus in order to show that the people, about whom we write, reached the very summit of the Roman Empire. Commentary The fragment consists of passages drawn from Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 1.4–5.1, 6.8, whereas the first (§83: Maximinus … effectus est imperator) and last section (§88 Eoque Mogontiaco …) rely on Orosius,

90

Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 3.3–5. Caracalla, emperor 211–17. 92 Fama factis extendens: cf. Vergil, Aeneid 10.468. 93 Macrinus, emperor 217–18. 94 Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 4.4–5.1. The crime is the murder of Caracalla. Macrinus ruled for only one year, but the text here implies three years. The error stems from Symmachus collapsing Macrinus and Heliogabalus into one: the Historia Augusta states that Maximinus refused to serve both Macrinus and Heliogabalus, and that he returned under Alexander Severus. Jordanes, Romana 278 gives the correct length for Macrinus’ reign, taken from Jerome. Cf. Hartke 1951, 433–4; Schwartz 1983, 280. 95 Orosius, Histories 7.18.7–8. Heliogabalus, emperor 218–22; wars in 224 and 227. Vitiello 2015, 205 (see also Callu 1985, 113–15) states that this event is not in Orosius and uses this to argue that here Symmachus used an unknown Greek source. In fact, the statement clearly derives from Orosius, Histories 7.18.7: nam statim expeditione in Persas facta Xerxen regem eorum maximo bello victor oppressit. 96 Cf. Orosius, Histories 7.18.8–19.1-2. Pupienus, emperor 238; Philippus Arabs, emperor 244–9. Cf. Orosius 7.18.8–19.2. Erroneously, Gordian III (238–44) is skipped over. Cf. Schwartz 1983, 282. None of these errors occurs in the Romana, where Jordanes follows Jerome. The origin of the errors cannot be determined: they could have been in Symmachus, as implied by Jordanes’ demarcation of the fragment, in Cassiodorus’ rendering of Symmachus, or they may be the fruit of Jordanes’ adbridgement of Symmachus. 91

Historia

161

Histories 7.18.7–19.2.97 It is, in effect, the earliest attestation of the use of the Historia Augusta. Symmachus has slightly adapted the passages from the Historia Augusta and improved their style somewhat.98 Scholars have tried to determine which parts of this fragment are due to Jordanes. W. Hartke argued, on stylistic grounds, that only the quotations from the Historia Augusta derive from Symmachus and that the additions from Orosius to the text of Symmachus were made by Jordanes himself.99 F. Mastandrea concludes from this that the Historia Romana of Symmachus is identical to the Historia Augusta.100 This disregards the delineation of the fragment by Jordanes himself, which implies that the passages from Orosius are part of the quotation. Moreover, the opening line, drawn from Orosius, is explicitly attributed to Symmachus. Finally, Symmachus was a Christian and thus likely to have known Orosius and unlikely to have qualms about using him. A variant of this argument was produced by J.-P. Callu, who sought to distinguish parts in higher style, derived from Symmachus, and parts in lower style by Jordanes himself.101 Callu’s exercise shows that it is difficult to make this distinction, thus suggesting that the passage comes from a single source. Moreover, his argument presupposes that Jordanes rephrased parts of the Historia Augusta, whilst he never made such interventions in his extracts from Florus and Festus, whom he cites extensively in the Romana.102 If, then, there is little reason to doubt that the fragment derives from Symmachus, who used the Historia Augusta and Orosius, there is one sentence that needs further discussion. In Getica 88, Jordanes writes post hunc sub Alexandrum Mamaeae contra Parthos mirabiliter dimicavit. This is the war also mentioned in Orosius, Histories 7.18.7 (nam statim expeditione in Persas facta Xerxen regem eorum maximo bello victor oppressit). Two elements suggest that Jordanes may have intervened in the course of his quotation from Symmachus. First, whereas Orosius has Persians, Jordanes has Parthians. The change may be due to Symmachus, but we 97

For juxtapositions of Jordanes, the Historia Augusta, and Orosius, see HRR II, 156–8; Mastandrea 2011, 214–16. Luiselli 1975, 531 and 1976, 93. 99 Hartke 1951, 427–39. On similar lines, see Usener 1877, 29; Wes 1967, 111. 100 Mastandrea 2011, 228. For a critique, see Festy 2014, 248. 101 Callu 1985, 116. 102 See Schwartz 1983. In addition, the errors regarding the sequence of emperors at the end of the fragment are not repeated by Jordanes in the Romana, where he takes the Chronicle of Jerome as his guide. As stated on p. 160 nn. 94 and 96 above, this implies that he is following a different source here. This fact argues against seeing the Romana as copying Symmachus – if additional arguments were needed. 98

162

Symmachus the Younger

know that Jordanes used Parthians and Persians interchangeably, so he may also have made this change. Second, Jordanes likes to add mirabiliter to his source to emphasize the importance of events, as he does in Getica 88.103 This provides support for the methodological caution needed when dealing with fragments: we are not reading a word-by-word quotation from Symmachus. We have already argued that it is likely that Jordanes quotes the passage from Symmachus indirectly, having taken it from Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths.104 Cassiodorus knew Symmachus’ work (cf. T1), and, as we have argued above, there are no traces of Symmachus elsewhere in Jordanes. The only plausible alternative to this option is that Jordanes found Symmachus’ work in the library of Cassiodorus, who may have brought it to Constantinople.105 Yet that scenario would raise the question as to why there is no trace of Symmachus anywhere else in Jordanes’ oeuvre. Symmachus’ history was in seven books, and as F1 informs us, Maximinus Thrax (r. 235–8) was discussed in book 5. We do not know the starting point of the history: its description as Roman history only indicates that its focus was on Rome (and did not include Greek history, as did Orosius), but this does not allow us to conclude that the foundation of Rome or the beginning of the Empire was its starting point. Nor do we know the end point, even if it is generally assumed that Symmachus covered history until his own time. Extant late antique histories of Rome in Latin allow for two possibilities for a starting point (the foundation of Rome or Augustus) and normally run until their own time. Eutropius, whose Breviarium (published in 364) takes ten books to cover history from 753 BC, mentions Maximinus Thrax at the beginning of book 9, having started the history of the Empire with book 7. The pace of narration slows down in the last two books, which each cover about half a century (Maximinus–Diocletian; Constantine–Jovian). Aurelius Victor, whose De Caesaribus is a single book consisting of forty-two chapters, ending 103

Jordanes, Romana 275 and Jerome, Chronicle 211e; Jordanes, Romana 276 and Jerome, Chronicle 213a; Jordanes, Romana 294 and Eutropius 9.18; Jordanes, Romana 302 and Jerome, Chronicle 227m. Cf. Hartke 1951, 434 n. 2. The examples come from the Romana, but there is a tight connection between both works. Getica 83 was used by Jordanes to compose Romana 281, just as there is a connection between Getica 88 (contra Parthos mirabiliter dimicavit) and Romana 280 (moxque contra Xersen regem Persarum arma arripiens mirabiliter de Parthorum spoliis triumphavit). 104 Usener 1877, 29; Ensslin 1949, 8; Hartke 1951, 439–40; Wes 1967, 187; Schwartz 1983, 276; Zecchini 1983, 90. Contra: Schwartz 1983, 284; Zecchini 1993, 203; Liebeschuetz 2011, 206; Festy 2014, 246. See the compromise of Girotti 2009, 237 that Jordanes used Symmachus in the Romana directly and in the Getica through Cassiodorus. The former is certainly wrong: see above pp. 148–53. 105 For the idea that Symmachus brought his work to Constantinople himself, see above p. 151 n. 25.

Historia

163

with Constantius II (337–61), mentions Maximinus in chapter 25. In this work, chapters get substantially longer towards the end. The Epitome de Caesaribus mentions Maximinus in chapter 25 of a total of forty-eight chapters, running from Augustus to Theodosius I. Here too the fourth century receives substantially more attention. Ammianus Marcellinus covered history from Nerva to Valens (96–378) in thirty-one books, with the first thirteen books covering history from 96 until 353. This arrangement suggests that Ammianus sought to continue Tacitus’ Histories, which, in turn, continued his Annales. Through this continuation Ammianus also starts with Augustus.106 Orosius, who covers history from the Creation, dedicates the last, seventh book to emperors from Augustus onwards. He does not, therefore, conform to the pattern of narrative slowdown, but he is somewhat more prolix when discussing the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries at the end of book 7. If we take Symmachus to conform to the general pattern of slowing down the narrative towards the end of the work and of writing until his own day (however that is defined),107 then he covered history from Maximinus until c. 500 in two or three books (Maximinus may have come at the beginning or at the end of book 5), that is, c. 250 years in two or three books. This would mean that he started at the foundation of Rome, for otherwise he would have covered the rest of the Empire (c. 250 years) in four or five books – thus effectively speeding up instead of slowing down narration when approaching his own period. By contrast, four or five books for a millennium (753 BC–AD 238) would mean about 200 years per book at the beginning of the work, to slow down to a century per book towards its end. This reasoning presupposes – we wish to stress – that Symmachus followed the standard pattern. This fragment is usually understood to be pro-Gothic in its leanings.108 Indeed, it leaves out some of the negative characteristics of Maximinus listed in the Historia Augusta, such as his heavy drinking and his treason against Alexander Severus.109 The fact that Maximinus is said to speak Thracian (not Gothic)110 is also left out, even if Symmachus does repeat that he was from Thrace. If Maximinus’ half-barbarian nature is not concealed,111 the emphasis is generally on his loyalty to good emperors. The 106

Marincola 1997, 240; G. Kelly 2008, 69. Matthews 1989, 31–2 is sceptical. For the pattern, see G. Kelly 2008, 69. Cf. Christensen 2002, 109–12. 109 Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 4.1–3, 7.1–5. 110 Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 2.5. 111 The story about his physical strength seems to be a topos for ‘barbarian’ emperors, for a similar anecdote is narrated about the Isaurian Zeno by Agnellus, Book of pontiffs 94. Wes 1967, 111 notes that the portrait is not without negative traits. Yet that does not make it anti-Gothic. 107 108

164

Symmachus the Younger

emphasis on the fact that a Goth became Roman emperor, on the other hand, is explicitly added by Jordanes himself. Finally, Symmachus also leaves out Maximinus’ numerous contacts with Goths during his retirement under Macrinus.112 The passage could have been much more strongly ‘pro-Gothic’ than it is now. On balance, then, the fact that Symmachus left out negative features of the half-Goth Maximinus, except for his persecution of Christians, suggests that he wrote under Gothic rule. Yet the Gothic nature of Maximinus is not strongly emphasized. Clearly, Symmachus wrote a history of Rome and not of the Goths. At the end of the fragment, Symmachus introduces an explicitly Christian perspective into his history, by noting that Maximinus Thrax spoilt all the good he had done by persecuting Christians.113 B. Luiselli concluded from this that Symmachus wrote a Christian history with a Roman focus.114 This would suggest something like the chronicle of Sulpicius Severus. In fact, Orosius provides the chronological backbone of the fragment, and thus Symmachus’ history was more likely a Roman secular history written from a Christian perspective.115 It has been suggested that we should read the fragment as critical of Theoderic: Maximinus, as the first Gothic emperor, would, in this case, be a mirror for the current ruler and a warning that he should not persecute Christians. This is then linked to a hypothetical date of publication of 519, when Theoderic appointed Eutharic as his successor. According to the Anonymus Valesianus II, a sixth-century Italian account of Theoderic, Eutharic was an enemy of the Catholics, and this marked the starting point of the deterioration of relations between Catholics and Arians.116 The history of Symmachus, then, would be subversive and critical of Theoderic. Such a reconstruction is problematic on a number of levels. It assumes a date that cannot be proven (see above) and takes what is stated in the Anonymus Valesianus too easily for fact. Indeed, the perception that the last years of Theoderic marked a turn towards persecution is one that does not do justice to the complexities of the period itself117 and is, moreover, 112

Historia Augusta, Life of the Two Maximini 4.4. Emphasized by Wes 1967, 117; Luiselli 1975, 532. 114 Luiselli 1975, 535. 115 For Orosius as standing in the Roman historiographical tradition, see Van Nuffelen 2012a. 116 Anonymus Valesianus II 80. For this interpretation, see Festy 2003 and 2014, 247. Zecchini 2011, 104–7 argues that the portrayal of Maximinus Thrax in Symmachus is inspired by that of Galerius and Maximinus Daia in Lactantius, On the death of the persecutors. The alleged parallels are too general to carry conviction: they show at best that both relay a number of stereotypical hostile presentations. 117 Cf. Croke 1983, 86; Moorhead 1992, 212–42; Cohen 2016, 519–20. 113

Historia

165

a perception a posteriori. For Symmachus to utter such a warning in 519 would be remarkable indeed. In addition, the fragment is less explicit than its source, Orosius, who emphasizes that Maximinus died immediately after starting the persecution and links him with Nero.118 Symmachus is more sober than his source, which argues against the idea that the aim of his history was to send a warning to the ‘persecutor’ Theoderic. On the contrary, by removing the comparison to Nero, Symmachus can be interpreted as seeking to steer his readers away from parallels that would reflect badly on Theoderic and thus might be dangerous for him. We should, then, be careful in drawing conclusions about the Tendenz of Symmachus’ work. The pro-Gothic tendency is not very strong, and there is no implicit warning addressed to Theoderic. Rather, as Orosius is the backbone of the narrative, we may be dealing with a somewhat expanded version of the potted survey of Roman history which the latter provided. This would make Symmachus’ historiographical activity rather similar to the type of historiography produced by the senatorial elite around 400.119 118

Orosius, Histories 7.19.1–2: … persecutionem in Christianos sextus a Nerone exercuit. sed continuo, hoc est tertio quam regnabat anno, a Pupieno Aquileiae interfectus persecutionis et vitae finem fecit. 119 See introduction p. 20.

15

Maximian of Ravenna Chronicle

Maximian (498/9–22 February 556/7) was a deacon from Pula, who was ordained as bishop of Ravenna in Patras by Vigilius of Rome on 14 October 546.1 Vigilius was on his way to Constantinople to discuss Justinian’s recent condemnation of the Three Chapters, which had started with his decree of 544/5.2 Maximian himself had travelled to the East before (cf. F2) and would do so again afterwards.3 He was a staunch defender of the emperor’s condemnation of the Three Chapters, one of the few in northern Italy. This would lead to a rapid increase in prestige for his see,4 marked by the acquisition of the title archiepiscopus5 and, maybe, the first use of the pallium, the ecclesiastical vestment bestowed by the bishop of Rome.6 In Ravenna, he successfully countered the suspicion that came with being an Imperial appointee and engaged in an extensive building programme, of which S. Vitale (in the famous mosaics of which he had himself depicted) is probably best known. The life and works of Maximian are mainly known through the Liber pontificalis of Agnellus (writing in the 830s and 840s), a monk and high-ranking presbyter of the church of Ravenna.7 This history of the church of Ravenna consists of biographies of all the bishops since the 1

Agnellus, Book of pontiffs 70: cf. Stein 1920, 53; Sotinel 1992, 18. On Maximian, see PCBE 2.1446; Stein 1920, 40–71; Testi Rasponi 1929, 29–49; Bovini 1957, 5–27; Markus 1979, 298. 2 For the Three Chapters, see Schwartz 1940; Stein 1949b, 632–69; Sotinel 1992; Price 2009, 8–58; Leppin 2011, 293–308. 3 Agnellus, Book of pontiffs 70 could be taken to suggest that Maximian spent most of the years until his ordination in the East, but that seems unlikely. Agnellus, Book of pontiffs 74 refers to another voyage, maybe in 548–9: see Markus 1979, 297; Testi Rasponi 1929, 192 n. 17; Sotinel 2007, 90. 4 Sotinel 2007, 87–8; Deliyannis 2010, 212–13. 5 Probably between May 548 and May 549: Markus 1979, 294; Testi Rasponi 1929, 43; Deichmann 1969, 11–19. 6 Possibly in 546: Markus 1979, 297; Sotinel 2007, 110; but see Deliyannis 2010, 210. 7 On his life and work, see Testi Rasponi 1911, 123–9 and 1924; Lanzoni 1909, 345–70, 425–64, 571–92; Fasoli 1970, 457–95; Benericetti 1994; Pizarro 1995; Nauerth 1996, 11–19; Deliyannis 2006, 8–15 and 2009, 283–97.

166



Nature of the Chronica

167

foundation of the bishopric. Composed in various stages, the first part of the book (at least chapters 1–113, the section with which we are concerned) were composed c. 831–41.8 Agnellus relied on the sources he could find, which often, and especially for the earlier lives, were not very numerous. Agnellus informs us about the literary activity of Maximian, who left a fully corrected Bible, liturgical books for the entire year, and a smaller book of sayings.9 From the reference to an altar cloth with depictions of all his predecessors in the see of Ravenna, it has been concluded that he was responsible for drawing up the first list of bishops of Ravenna.10 Finally, Agnellus twice refers to a history, which he calls chronica, composed by Maximian. The work was either a narrative history or a narrative chronicle. If it was the former, it may have covered the fifth and early sixth century; if the latter, it is likely that it started with the Creation. In either case, it represents a rare type of historiography in the late antique Latin West: no narrative history composed in the West survives from the period between Orosius and Gregory of Tours, whilst the narrative chronicle is attested in Latin only in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus. The work also stands out in its focus on secular events and the fact that it relied on information gathered by Maximian during his travels in the East. There is no evidence to substantiate the idea that Maximian composed the chronicle to support the rise of Ravenna to supermetropolitan status: in fact, it is likely that it was composed in the 520s, long before Maximian became bishop of Ravenna in 546. Both fragments raise questions regarding three issues: the nature of the work, its place and date of composition, and its relationship to the hypothetical Ravenna Annals.

Nature of the Chronica The work of Maximian is usually labelled a ‘chronicle’ by scholars. The label itself is unclear,11 and it is uncertain if it is appropriate here. Though Agnellus calls the work chronica (F1 and F2), this may just be a generic designation for a history. In F2 Agnellus calls Jerome and Orosius historians (historiographi) who wrote chronica. If Jerome did indeed write what 8

Deliyannis 2006, 17. Agnellus, Book of pontiffs 81. 10 Agnellus, Book of pontiffs 80. Cf. Picard 1988, 489–90, 590–9; Deliyannis 2010, 212. 11 For a discussion of various forms of chronicles, see Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 1–62; the introduction to Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a. 9

168

Maximian of Ravenna

we call a chronicle, Orosius composed a secular history, entitled Historiae. In the Book of pontiffs, Agnellus uses chronica only in the two fragments of Maximian, whereas historia repeatedly designates not a work but its contents (the events of the past).12 Indeed, in later Latin, the title chronica could designate any work of history.13 For the sake of convenience, the title chronica is used here, but it is far from certain that it is, in fact, the exact title. As for the nature of the work, Jerome and Orosius, to whom Agnellus refers, offer two rather different models. Let us see if the features in evidence in the fragments help us to decide where to situate Maximian. First, Agnellus explicitly indicates that the work was made up of a number of books (F2: in suis voluminibus; per diversos libros nobiliorum principum, non solum imperatorum, sed et regum et praefectorum). Extant Latin chronicles from Late Antiquity tend to be modelled on Jerome and are basically a single list of dated entries in chronological order with no book divisions.14 This makes it highly unlikely that Maximian composed a chronica (that is, a work modelled on that of Jerome15) or that he wrote consularia, as has often been assumed in older scholarship on account of Maximian’s links with the material that used to be attributed to the ‘Ravenna Annals’ (see below):16 no extant consularia have book divisions. Second, if the fragments clearly rely on chronicle sources, they give no precise indication of the year, be it through consular dating or dating by regnal years. Maximian seems to have welded the material drawn from consularia and chronicles into a single narrative, often preserving exact dates within a year but not preserving the exact years in which the events took place. Moreover, the narrative on Alexandria in F2 is longer than most entries in chronicles and certainly than those of consularia.17 The same fragment also includes a reference to the eyewitness account of the author, which is a common element in classical historiography. Third, Agnellus defines the content of the work as dealing with emperors, kings, and prefects (F1 and F2). One may presume that the former are the Roman emperors and the kings are the non-Roman rulers in the West. A story about a prefect in Alexandria is attested in F2. Agnellus 12

Agnellus, Book of pontiffs 15, 29, 31–2, 54, 80, 95, 114, 119. Gregory of Tours, Histories 1.pr. Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 59. Cf. Testi Rasponi 1924, 201 n. 7. 15 For the definition, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020 a, p. LII-LIII and the introduction pp. 11–12. 16 Deliyannis 2006, 30; Benericetti 1994, 184 suggests the presence of consularia in Maximian. 17 Already noticed by Waitz 1865, 110; Deliyannis 2001, 3–22, 17 cautiously suggests Maximian used annus mundi dating. 13

14



Nature of the Chronica

169

repeats this assessment twice, suggesting that he had a firm idea of the content. Maximian’s focus, then, was mainly political. This fact is borne out by the fragments, even if they do record natural phenomena such as earthquakes. From F2 we know that Maximian also touched upon ecclesiastical events, but it should be noted that the story is firmly focused on a popular riot and the intervention of the authorities, rather than on the ecclesiastical background of this disturbance. This renders it plausible that ecclesiastical affairs were not Maximian’s main interest.18 As we know that Maximian had an interest in his predecessors in the see of Ravenna and may have ordered a list of them to be compiled, the chronica’s focus on secular affairs is significant. On the basis of this focus and Agnellus’ repeated references to emperors and kings, it may even be argued that the reigns of emperors and kings provided the main chronological markers of the work: this would, in any case, be a plausible way of proceeding in late antique historiography. Maximian’s work was, then, clearly different from most chronographic works circulating in the West at this time, for these are either continuations of Jerome or consularia. Thus, we are left with two options. Either the work was a narrative history, or it was a narrative chronicle, one that included much more narrative than was usual in chronicles, even to the detriment of the apparatus of time-reckoning. In the West, Sulpicius Severus’ chronica is the best (and only extant) example of this. If we look to the East, it may be that the distinction between narrative history and chronicle was not always easy to make. By the end of the fifth and early sixth century, there was a flourishing tradition of writing chronological histories, that is, histories modelled on that of Dexippus, which included a chronological apparatus but was much more expansive and narrative than ordinary chronicles. Heliconius, Eustathius of Epiphania, Hesychius of Miletus, and John of Antioch are examples of this.19 In form they could be close to works that insert themselves into the chronicle tradition, like Sulpicius Severus and John Malalas, or later Syriac chronicles.20 In this

18

This rules out the suggestion offered in Testi Rasponi 1924, 202–6 n. 3 that Maximian composed a chronography, that is, a collection of various chronographic materials, such as consularia, a description of Ravenna, a list of bishops, etc., as none of these elements is attested in the extant fragments. For criticism, see Benericetti 1994, 184. Deliyannis 2010, 212 seems to identify the chronicle with the first history of the see of Ravenna, but then characterizes it as a ‘typical secular world chronicle’. 19 See CHAP s.v. 20 See Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020a, XXIII–XXXVII, LV–LVII for these generic distinctions; CHAP s.v. for the various works mentioned.

170

Maximian of Ravenna

light, the precise generic pigeon-holing of Maximian may not be germane and is certainly impossible on the basis of only two fragments. One feature of these Greek works is that they tend to start at the Creation. This is often assumed for Maximian,21 but is, again, not certain. Agnellus notes that Maximian composed his chronica post beatum Ieronimum et Orosium vel alios historiographos (F2) and that he followed them (ipsos secutus). This need not be more than a temporal indication of Maximian’s date of writing and his taking of Jerome and Orosius as sources of inspiration, but it could also mean that he wrote in continuation of them. F1 may confirm this. It deals with Galla Placidia (388/92–450) and Valentinian III (d. 455), that is, roughly starting where Orosius left off, with a slight overlap for the marriage of Galla Placidia and Athaulf, and could mark the beginning of Maximian’s work. Indeed, one may speculate that if Maximian had offered information about earlier periods, Agnellus would have used it, given his general lack of sources for the earlier period.22 If, then, Maximian’s chronica was a narrative chronicle, it would have started with the Creation as the other extant examples of that format do (in both Greek and Latin). The other option is that he composed an ordinary history, which, in that case, may have started in the early fifth century. This would fit with the extant fragments and with the description Agnellus offers of the work’s subjects, that is, emperors and kings: from a Western perspective, it is at the beginning of the fifth century that barbarian kings start to play a role alongside Roman emperors. Whatever the precise nature and starting point of his work, Maximian used a variety of sources. F1 betrays the use of a list of emperors, besides consularia and/or chronicles. F2 refers to his own experience and may have been based on notes collected during his travels. The reference to his status as an eyewitness again puts Maximian in the tradition of narrative history.

Time and Place of Writing When was the chronica written? A secure terminus post quem is 521, the year of the earthquake mentioned in F2; the terminus ante quem is Maximian’s death in February 557 at the latest. Between these termini, both an early and a late date are possible. An early date may be supported by F2, where 21

Holder-Egger 1878, 273; Testi Rasponi 1924, 202–6 n. 3; Deliyannis 2006, 30 and 2010, 212. See Benericetti 1994, 161–84; Nauerth 1996, 42–64 on the sources. On contacts between East and West and the impact on historiography (in this case the Roman Liber pontificalis), see Deliyannis 2014, 1–16.

22



Time and Place of Writing

171

the earthquake in Anazarbus is said to have happened ante pauca. This could refer to the time between the ordination of Timothy as bishop of Alexandria (517) and the earthquake (521) (‘shortly afterwards’) or to the time between the earthquake and the time of writing (‘shortly before’). In the latter case, the work was produced shortly after 521. Linguistically, this last option is more likely (see below on F2). As this option implies that little time has elapsed between the earthquake and the time of writing, it suggests that an early date of writing, soon after 521, is to be preferred. Such an early date, before Maximian’s ordination as bishop of Ravenna, would imply that the chronica was not particularly focused on Ravenna. This runs counter to the general assumption that the work was centred on that city, but, in fact, the extant fragments do not support this idea, either. F1 discusses Galla Placidia alongside the sack of Aquileia as well as the fire in Ravenna, yet all these events are also amply recorded in Western and Eastern sources and should not imply a particular focus on Ravenna.23 F2 has no interest in Ravenna, but speaks of the times when Maximian was in the East. Such a statement can be taken to imply that the work was written in the West or, at least, that Maximian addressed a Western audience. The lack of a focus on Ravenna might, incidentally, help to explain Agnellus’ limited use of the chronica, as he was mainly interested in events related to this city. In favour of a later date, one can point to the fact that Agnellus refers to the work as composed by the archbishop Maximian and that it is cited only by Agnellus, who worked in Ravenna. This need not signify more than Maximian bringing the work to Ravenna when he was ordained as its bishop in 546, but it could also be taken to imply that he wrote it there after 546. The date and place of composition must remain uncertain. Most likely the chronica was composed in the West and brought by Maximian to Ravenna when he became bishop. An early date of composition, in the 520s, is, given the current state of the evidence, likely and explains the features of the extant fragments better than the alternative. Nevertheless, a late date of composition cannot be excluded, though this would not warrant the conclusion that the chronica served to enhance the prestige of Ravenna or to defend Justinian’s policy.24 23

See the commenary on F1. But note the fact that in F2 Maximian is fairly positive about the miaphysite bishop of Alexandria, Timothy IV, which could be seen as reflecting Justinian’s push for a reconciliation of both groups through the condemnation of the Three Chapters. Yet in the same fragment, Maximian also hints at a link between miaphysitism and violence.

24

172

Maximian of Ravenna

Maximian and the ‘Ravenna Annals’ Maximian has usually been discussed within the context of the sources of Agnellus and that of the hypothetical ‘Ravenna Annals’. Throughout the Liber pontificalis, up to the year 573, one finds notices, often in groups, that betray an origin in chronicles.25 The entries in Agnellus are sometimes close to those found in other Latin chronicles, and this has led to the hypothesis that the various extant texts as well as the source of Agnellus relied on a single text, the so-called ‘Ravenna Annals’.26 These would have been consularia, and Mommsen printed passages from Agnellus alongside other texts in his edition of the Consularia Italica, his name for the Ravenna Annals.27 The hypothesis of a single set of Ravenna Annals has now been abandoned: it relied on the idea that it was a text compiled by the authorities (imperial or civic) which would then be copied. There is, however, no evidence for such official consularia. Rather, consularia seem to have been produced by individuals copying other consularia and relying on the official proclamations of the government.28 As long as the hypothesis of the ‘Ravenna Annals’ held sway, scholars struggled to fit the chronica of Maximian into the model. As the extant fragments show up clear points of connection with other chronicles and consularia, Maximian could be seen as one user of the Ravenna Annals. At the same time, Agnellus used his chronicle source up until the second half of the sixth century, that is, until after Maximian’s death.29 HolderEgger suggested that Maximian used the Ravenna Annals and that Agnellus had access to a later copy of those Annals.30 For Testi Rasponi, Maximian was the author of the Ravenna Annals,31 and Agnellus used an updated version of Maximian’s text. In other words, the Ravenna Annals went under the name of Maximian. Such a hypothesis is rather unlikely, even if one accepts the existence of the Ravenna Annals.32 Waitz even suggested that the excerpts concerning Theodoric the Great known as Anonymus Valesianus II were derived from Maximian. This relied on the 25

Holder-Egger 1876, 311. See the debate reviewed by Muhlberger 1981, 30–7; Deliyannis 2006, 140–7. Discussion of the hypothesis can be found in Waitz 1865, 81–114; Holder-Egger 1876, 215–347 and 1878, 272–3; Kaufmann 1883, 474–510; Lanzoni 1909, 433–8. 27 In fact, Mommsen’s own presentation suffices to show up the low level of contact between Agnellus and the Consularia Italica: Mommsen 1892, 249–339. 28 Muhlberger 1981, 36–7; Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 181. 29 Waitz 1865, 108–12. 30 Holder-Egger 1876, 312. 31 Testi Rasponi 1924, 201 n. 7, 202 n. 3. Cf. Pallmann 1863, 204–10. 32 Benericetti 1994, 184. 26



Maximian and the ‘Ravenna Annals’

173

fact that there are some parallels between the Ravenna Annals and the Anonymus Valesianus.33 Once the hypothesis of the Ravenna Annals as a single text has been abandoned, two things become apparent. First, there is no reason to think that Maximian could not have used a variety of chronicles as source. This is likely in light of the fact that the material in F1 has clear links not only with Western chronicles, but also, albeit to a lesser degree, with Greek chronicles, and that F2 is clearly linked to the Greek chronicle tradition, as the commentary below will show. Second, one could entertain the possibility that Agnellus also relied on multiple chronicles, of which Maximian was one. This may be an alternative explanation for the fact that Agnellus does not seem to possess precise chronographic data for the third quarter of the fifth century, which causes serious distortions in his Life of John. Deliyannis has suggested that part of the chronicle he was using was missing,34 but one could also propose that Agnellus used various texts with differing levels of coverage. The gap in Agnellus’ chronographic knowledge also has a bearing on Maximian. F1 relates to the second quarter of the fifth century and F2 to the early sixth. If one sees Maximian as a, or even the major, source for Agnellus, then we must accept that Maximian either did not cover the third quarter of the fifth century or that part of his chronicle had been lost before Agnellus used it. If one thinks of Agnellus rather as using different sources, it may be that he did not bother to plug the gap in his other sources with information from Maximian. The overview above has been limited to the fragments that are explicitly ascribed to Maximian, as this is the only secure basis for discussion of the work. Yet it has been suggested that other passages from Agnellus should be attributed to Maximian, usually relying on some version of the Ravenna Annals-hypothesis. Testi Rasponi suggests chapters 31, 39, 90, and 94.35 The last two chapters record material that postdates Maximian’s death, but Testi Rasponi argues that the ‘Ravenna Annals’ were identical to the chronicle of Maximian and that Agnellus used an updated version of the latter. Waitz suggests chapters 39, 62, and 79.36 Chapter 79 records events from 554 until 560, whereas Maximian died in 557 at the latest. 33

Waitz 1865, 108. Holder-Egger 1876, 324 suggests that the Anonymus used Maximian; cf. Croke 2003, 357; Goltz 2008, 525. This relies on attributing chronographic passages in Agnellus (esp. 39) to Maximian, for which there is no evidence: see the last paragraph below. 34 Deliyannis 2006, 103–5. 35 Testi Rasponi 1924, 202 n. 3. 36 Waitz 1865, 112.

174

Maximian of Ravenna

This would force us to allocate part of 79 to Maximian and another part to another source. Yet there is no clear break in the chapter. Moreover, 79 immediately follows F2, which concludes with a clear statement that the quotation from Maximian has ended, and it seems unlikely that Agnellus would simply continue to use Maximian after such a statement. Deliyannis, noting the biographical nature of F1, entertains the possibility that biographical sketches seen in earlier lives (including, again, 39) could derive from Maximian.37 Yet we cannot be certain that the biographical character of F1 is not due to Agnellus himself: in F2 at least we do not notice biographical features. Given that Maximian and Agnellus relied on chronicle sources, it is impossible to disentangle what belongs to whom, and any argument can only claim some degree of probability. One might note, however, that chapters 39 and 90 record events with regnal years (of Theodoric, Justinian, and Justin II). In the extant fragments, Maximian notes the length of reigns, but does not date events to specific years and certainly does not use regnal years as a tool for dating. This renders it even more unlikely that chapters 39 and 90 derive from Maximian.38 Caution is therefore appropriate, especially when using other passages to reconstruct Maximian’s work.

Chronica? F1: Agnellus, Book of pontiffs 42 (Life of John) (Deliyannis 2006, 201 ll. 429–45; cf. Holder-Egger 1878, 306 l. 30–307 l. 5; Testi Rasponi 1924, 123 l. 127–272 l. 284; tr. Deliyannis 2004, 150 modified, cf. Nauerth 1996, 213–15) Et si vultis eis39 inquirere analogiam, Maximiani archiepiscopi chronicam legite; ibi plura de ea et de multis imperatoribus et regibus invenietis. Ipsa quoque augusta, postquam a quodam Athaulpho relicta est, ab Honorio imperatore Constantio comiti in matrimonium data est, et post se quasi successorem imperator reliquit. Unoque anno Constantius post mortem Honorii gentibus imperavit, morbo correptus vitales auras amisit; et reli­ quit filium modicum Gallae, Valentinianum nomine. Cum bis ternos annos et quattuor tempora anni Valentinianus esset, divo Honorio, patruo 37

Deliyannis 2006, 31. Holder-Egger 1876, 309–10 argues that Agnellus refers to chronicle material not derived from Maximian as coming from ‘old people’. But in the cases that he cites, the reference is to information about individual bishops and not to chronographic information (31, 70). 39 eius Holder-Egger. 38

Chronica?

175

suo, in imperium successit. Qui .xxx. et unum annis imperio durans, Romae occisus est in loco qui vocatur ad Laurum. Galla vero non vidit necem filii quia antea Roma obiit .v. Klas.40 Decembris. Apparuit post haec stella in caelo ardens per dies .xxx., et capta et fracta est Aquileia ab Hunnis. Arsit Ravenna Idus Martii, et multae opes ab igne crematae sunt.

And if you want to find out about things like these,41 read the chronicle of Archbishop Maximian; there you will find many things about her42 and about many emperors and kings. Moreover, this empress,43 after she was widowed by a certain Athaulf,44 was given in marriage by the emperor Honorius45 to his count Constantius, and the emperor named him as his successor.46 And Constantius ruled the nations for one year after the death of Honorius;47 seized by sickness he lost his life, and he left a young son by Galla, whose name was Valentinian. When Valentinian was six years and four months old, he succeeded the divine Honorius, his paternal uncle, on the Imperial throne.48 Lasting for 31 years on the throne,49 he was killed at Rome at the place which is called At the Laurel.50 Galla 40

Kal. Holder-Egger. For this meaning of analogia, see Nauerth 1996, 213 n. 174. Galla Placidia (388–450), daughter of Theodosius I (380–95) and mother of Valentinian III (425–55). Cf. PLRE II, 888–9; Oost 1968; Sivan 2011; Salisbury 2015. 43 Augusta may have the general meaning of empress, but Galla Placidia received the title Augusta in 421: Olympiodorus F34 Blockley and PLRE II, 889. 44 Galla Placidia was taken hostage in 410 and married Athaulf in 414. Cf. Olympiodorus F22 and 24; Orosius, Histories 7.40.2, 7.43.2–7; Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1257, 1259; Chronicle of 452, 77; Hydatius, Chronicle 49 (57); Cassiodorus, Chronicle 1193 (a. 416); Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle a. 410, 414. 45 Honorius, Augustus 393–423. 46 Constantius III (PLRE II, 321–5) was comes et magister utriusque militiae from 411 until 421. He married Galla Placidia on 1 January 417, to become Augustus in 421, the year of his death. Cf. Orosius, Histories 7.43; Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1259, 1273, 1276; Chronicle of 452, 88; Hydatius, Chronicle 54 (62), 67 (75), 68 (76); Procopius, Wars 3.3.4, with Lütkenhaus 1998; Sivan 2011, 9–36; Salisbury 2015, 94–107. 47 In fact, Constantius III died in 421, two years before Honorius. 48 Valentinian III was indeed born on 2 July 419 and became Augustus on 23 October 425: PLRE II, 1138–9. Cf. McEvoy 2013, 223–304. 49 Strictly speaking, one year too many (425–55), this is probably due to the fact that the year 424, when the usurper John ruled, was allocated to Valentinian III. Valentinian was made Caesar in that year (23 October). 50 The death of Valentinian (16 March 455) is usually situated in the Field of Mars: Priscus, Histories F30; Hydatius, Chronicle 155 (162); Cassiodorus, Chronicle 1262; Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle a. 455; Victor of Tunnunna, Chronicle a. 455. An alternative is the Forum (Chronicle of 511, 623) or simply outside the city (Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1375). Maximian’s Ad Laurum is Ad Duas Lauros, an estate on the Via Labicana (Book of pontiffs 34.26). He shares this location with Continuatio 41

42

176

Maximian of Ravenna

did not see the death of her son, since she had died previously at Rome on 27 November.51 After these things a star appeared in the sky, burning for 30 days,52 and Aquileia was captured and destroyed by the Huns.53 Ravenna burned on 15 March, and much wealth was consumed by the fire.54 Commentary The delimitation of this fragment is problematic. The previous chapter in Agnellus deals with the building of the Santa Croce church by Galla Placidia. It seems to be based on local tradition and inscriptions, a pattern that recurs often in Agnellus.55 He then indicates to the reader that more can be found on Galla in Maximian’s chronicle, after which the fragment, containing detailed information on Galla and Valentinian, follows. It clearly derives from a chronographic source or a source using such material. The rest of chapter 42 then returns to the local tradition of Galla Placidia’s burial and building activities and was, therefore, most likely elaborated by Agnellus himself on the basis of local tradition. This leaves the fragment as we print it. Holder-Egger attributes the second half of the fragment (qui .xxx. et unum annis imperio durans … crematae sunt) not to Maximian but to the hypothetical Ravenna Annals, that is, a chronographic source composed in Ravenna (see above p. 172). His supposition Reichenauensis of Prosper 16 (a. 455) and Paschal Chronicle 592A, which misunderstood its source and writes that Valentinian died μέσον δύο λαύρων. The estate was located to the southeast of Rome, on the side of the city exactly opposite the Field of Mars, even if Continuatio Havniensis of Prosper a. 455 tries to reconcile both versions by situating Ad Duas Lauros close to the Field of Mars. We know that the body of Valentinian was dragged through the city: if one wishes to reconcile these versions, one could suggest that Valentinian was killed in the Field of Mars and dragged to Ad Duas Lauros, or vice versa. 51 Galla had already died in 450. Cf. Chronicle of 452, 136 (with the date); Continuatio Reichenauensis of Prosper 16; Continuatio Ovetensis of Prosper 10; Hydatius, Chronicle 140 (148); Chronicle of 511, 612; Procopius, Wars 3.4.15. 52 An appearance of Halley’s Comet in 451: Fasti Vindobonenses Posteriori a. 451: stella apparuit ardens in caelo per dies xxx; cf. Chronicle of 452, 140; Hydatius, Chronicle 143 (151) (a. 452). Contrary to what it says, the text reverts back to other events before the death of Valentinian. 53 Probably in 452: Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1365 (a. 451): Aquileia fracta est; Continuatio Havniensis of Prosper a. 452; Cassiodorus, Chronicle 1255 (a. 452); Chronicle of 511, 617; Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle a. 452; Consularia Marsiburgensia a. 452 (Bischoff and Koehler 1939, 109): … Aquileia fracta est …; Jordanes, Getica 220; Procopius, Wars 3.4; Gregory of Tours, Histories 2.7; Theophanes, Chronicle AM 5945. The destruction seems exaggerated: Sotinel 2005, 241–4, wrongly stating that the event is not attested in the Gallic chronicles. 54 In 455: Continuatio Havniensis of Prosper a. 455: Ravenna arsit; Theophanes, Chronicle AM 5948. 55 Nauerth 1996, 48–58.

Chronica?

177

seems to be that the last part is more similar to chronographic entries than the section on Galla Placidia’s marriage, but chronicles also discussed Galla Placidia.56 Moreover, we know from F2 that Maximian also recorded natural phenomena such as earthquakes, so the appearance of a star and the destruction of Ravenna and Aquileia may also derive from him. With due caution, then, the whole of F1 can be attributed to Maximian. In contrast to F2, F1 is not a direct quotation, which renders it difficult to draw conclusions about the formal features of Maximian’s chronicle. The fragment reads as a potted biography of Galla and Valentinian, but this may be the result of Agnellus’ condensation. It would be mistaken to conclude from this fragment that Maximian composed according to a biographical model. The fragment clearly relies on chronicle sources. For the last three events (the star and the destructions of Aquileia and Ravenna) we have exact verbal parallels in three different chronicles. If this proves the use of chronographic sources, it does not allow us to speculate about the precise identification of this source.57 As set out in more detail below, the production of chronicles must be seen as, by and large, the activity of individuals who relied on earlier material and official pronouncements, rather than merely copying a single source.58 A second type of source was a list of emperors, which may have been integrated into a chronicle. Maximian has a clear succession of emperors: Honorius, Constantius III, and Valentinian. He erroneously attributes a year of independent rule to Constantius III after Honorius’ death, whereas Constantius in fact died in 421, two years before Honorius, and he gives Valentinian III one year too many (thirty-one instead of thirty). This may have been caused by the fact that Maximian seems to ignore the usurper John, who ruled Rome between Honorius and Valentinian (423–5). Constantius and Valentinian were used to plug the gap. The fragment combines accuracy in dates with sloppiness in identifying the years: whereas Constantius’ death is postponed until 424, that of Galla Placidia, on 27 November, is suggested to have taken place in 454 instead of 450. This may have been the result

56

See p. 175 nn. 44 and 46 above. Besides the idea of the Ravenna Annals, discussed below, in Testi Rasponi 1924, 127 n. 1, it is suggested that Agnellus shared a source with Theophanes and the Gallic chronicles. Again, there is not enough exact coincidence to identify a precise source. It is, for example, also interesting to note that in the Greek tradition only the Paschal Chronicle shares the location of Valentinian’s death Ad Duas Lauros with Maximian and the Continuatio Reichenauensis of Prosper 16 (a. 455) (see p. 175 n. 50). 58 Muhlberger 1981, 37–8; Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 181. 57

178

Maximian of Ravenna

of using c­ hronographic material to build the narrative: the entries would give precise dates, e.g. for the death of Galla Placidia, but the years would be marked by the succession of consuls. These disappeared when either Maximian or Agnellus turned the source material into a narrative sequence. F2: Agnellus, Book of pontiffs 78 (Life of Maximian) (Deliyannis 2006, 246–7, ll. 237–63; Holder-Egger 1878, 330 l. 27–331 l. 10; Testi Rasponi 1924, 200 l. 163–202 l. 179; tr. Deliyannis 2006, 192–3 modified;59 cf. Nauerth 1996, 323–5) Navigaverat iam hic beatissimus antea partibus orientalis, sicut ipse in suis voluminibus loquitur dicens: In Alexandria vero nulla extrinsecus mali causa, sed quod genus hominum ferox seditiosum semper inquietum est, civile inter se motum est bellum; non virtutis merito, neque ob defensionem, sed ob necem atque interitum civium, commoti universi praefectum suum intra ecclesiam occiderunt, quod iam antea aliquanti similiter episcopum suum accusantes haereticum interfecerant. Quo comperto, imperator in iram versus, funditus civitatem iussit everti. Denique misso alio praefecto nomine Laudicio, intra ipsam civitatem .xl. viros per singulas regiones in ligno suspendit. Sed tunc ela­ boravit Dioscorus, eiusdem urbis episcopus, et manifeste posuit animam suam pro ovibus suis; electique ex heremo monachi apud imperatorem properant atque pro excessu civium veniam exorant. Tunc imperator cessit sacerdotibus et deinceps cavere a talibus mandavit. Huic episcopo apud Alexandriam Timotheus successit, quem ego navigans orientem in sua ­civitate bene administrantem vidi. Sed ante pauca Nazarba civitas Ciliciae terraemotu facto concidit, in qua perisse ferunt amplius .xxx. milia hominum. Haec pontificis verba sunt. Post beatum Ieronimum et Orosium vel alios historiographos iste in chronicis laboravit, et ipsos secutus per diversos libros nobiliorum principum, non solum [impiorum]60 imperatorum, sed et regum et praefectorum, suam propriam chronicam exaravit.

59

Deliyannis’ translation of this passage is problematic, and so we present a reworked version of her rendering. 60 Considered to be an error born from a dittography of Holder-Egger 1878, 331; Testi Rasponi 1924, 202 n. 2; Nauerth 1996, 324.

Chronica?

179

Now this most blessed man had previously sailed in Eastern parts, as he mentions in his volumes, saying: But in Alexandria, there was no external cause of evil, but because that race of men is fierce, seditious, and restless,61 civil war arose among them; aroused, not for the sake of virtue, nor for defence, but for the sake of slaughter and the killing of citizens, the whole population killed their prefect inside the church, because previously some others had likewise killed their bishop, accusing him of heresy. When this was discovered, the emperor, moved to anger, ordered the city to be completely destroyed. Thereupon, another prefect by the name of Laudicius was sent, and he crucified forty men within the walls of the city, divided over all its districts. But then Dioscorus, the bishop of the city, laboured hard, and openly offered his own life for his sheep; and selected monks hastened from the wilderness to the emperor and pleaded forgiveness for the excess of the citizens. Then the emperor gave in to the priests and ordered them to beware of such things in the future. This bishop in Alexandria was succeeded by Timothy, whom I saw administering well in his city during my sea voyage to the East. But shortly before62 there was an earthquake, and the city of Nazarba63 in Cilicia was destroyed. They say that more than 30,000 people perished there. These are the words of the bishop. After blessed Jerome and Orosius and other historians he worked on chronicles, and following them, he wrote his own chronicle about most noble leaders, not only emperors, but also kings and prefects,64 in several books. 61

Alexandria was famous for its popular riots since the Hellenistic period: Polybius, Histories 25.30; Seneca, To Helvia 19.6; Philo, Against Flaccus 41; Cassius Dio 50.24.7; Expositio totius mundi 37.174; Ammianus Marcellinus 22.11.4; Historia Augusta, Life of Saturninus 8, Life of Aemilianus 22.1–4; Palladius, Dialogue 12.19.6: Socrates, Ecclesiastical history 3.3.3; Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical history 2.8. Cf. Haas 1997. One might also take genus hominum as meaning mankind in general, but this would blunt the contrast the text suggests between the absence of a cause of unrest in Alexandria and the volatile nature of the people there. 62 Ante pauca, a rare expression, could be translated as ‘shortly before’ (cf. Nauerth 1996, 325; Augustine, Opus imperfectum 1.69) and would then refer to the time of writing. It could also mean ‘before long’, ‘soon’ (Deliyannis 2004, 193) and would then indicate the time span between the riot of 516 and the earthquake of 521. The former meaning is more likely, as the latter is usually rendered by post pauca. 63 That is, Anazarbus. 64 Cf. F1, where emperors and kings are defined as the subjects of the work. Agnellus may have added prefects here because prefects play a role in this fragment.

180

Maximian of Ravenna Commentary

This fragment deals with two events: first, the Alexandrian riots of 516 that resulted in the murder of the prefect Theodosius,66 and, second and much more briefly, the earthquake of Anazarbus in 521.67 Two versions of the riot exist. John Malalas depicts the murder as the consequence of a food riot, caused by the shortage of bread and oil.68 Another strand, ultimately deriving from the early sixth-century Chalcedonian historian Theodore Lector,69 emphasizes the religious nature of the riot. According to Theophanes, relying on Theodore Lector and not Malalas (whom he also knew),70 Dioscorus had been ordained as bishop of Alexandria at the behest of the civil authorities after the death of John Nikaiotes (22 May 516). The clergy refused to accept his ordination, as the proper canonical procedure had not been followed. A second ordination, this one performed according to the rules, took place but was interrupted by the people. In the mêlée, the prefect was killed. Dioscorus then travelled to Constantinople to placate the emperor. Maximian’s version, unnoticed in most scholarship, offers a unique version. He squarely blames the murder on the people’s riotous nature, recalling how the Alexandrians had killed an earlier bishop. Maximian alludes to the death of the Chalcedonian Proterius (457) at the hands of the miaphysite followers of Timothy Aelurus.71 This allusion is not without relevance, as the new bishop Dioscorus was a nephew of Timothy Aelurus.72 Maximian may, then, be subtly identifying miaphysitism and violence.73 His omission of a specific cause for the riot may have the same polemical intent. In contrast with Theophanes, who depicts a military 65

65

That this is a fragment of the chronicle is disputed by Testi Rasponi 1924, 201 n. 7, suggesting that volumina is not the same as chronica. But Agnellus refers to the writing of chronicles at the end of the fragment. 66 On this event, see Holder-Egger 1878, 330; Testi Rasponi 1924, 200–1. 67 John Malalas, Chronicle 17.15; Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical history 4.8; Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6017. Cf. Holder-Egger 1878, 331 n. 3; Mango, Scott, and Greatrex 1997, 262. 68 John Malalas, Chronicle 16.15. 69 Theodore Lector, Ecclesiastical history, epitome 522. Cf. Liberatus, Breviarium 18; Severus of Antioch, Select letters 4.3. 70 Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6009. Mango, Scott, and Greatrex 1997, 248 state that the source for the second half of Theophanes’ account is unknown, but as it gives an ecclesiastical explanation for the murder, it is likely that it is Theodore Lector, the source of the first half of the account. 71 Blaudeau 2006, 145–53. 72 Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6009. On the succession, see also Liberatus, Breviarium 18; Victor of Tunnuna, Chronicle a. 517 and 521, with Brooks 1903, 494–7; Maspero 1923; Vasiliev 1950, 284; Stein 1949b, 164. 73 The episode is, significantly, not recorded in miaphysite sources, such as Pseudo-Zachariah.

Chronica?

181

commander, Acacius,74 as present at the occasion and has him suppress the revolt immediately, Maximian knows of a new prefect, Laudicius, who was sent by the emperor to punish the city. PLRE II lists no prefect between Theodosius (516) and Fl. Strategius (518/23),75 and so Laudicius probably ought to be inserted in between them.76 Maximian is also more specific about the delegation that went to Constantinople: contrary to Theophanes, he explicitly mentions monks and priests alongside the bishop himself, unless one takes sacerdotes to mean the bishop and the monks. Maximian probably heard this version when in Alexandria. As he notes, he was in Alexandria during the episcopate of Timothy IV (517–35).77 Significantly, Maximian adds that he runs his bishopric well, although, again, Timothy was a miaphysite.78 Maximian’s reference to his presence in Alexandria confirms what is already clear from the fact that both episodes are only reported in Eastern sources: Maximian was relying on material gathered during one of his sojourns in the East. The level of detail precludes the idea that Maximian wrote his chronicle on the basis of his memory. This leaves us with two possibilities. Either Maximian took notes during his travels, or he gathered Greek chronicles which became the basis for his own chronicle – or it may have been a combination of the two. At any rate, it is clear that Maximian was already contemplating the writing of a history during his travels. 74

PLRE II, 5 (5). PLRE II, 1102 (18) and PLRE II, 1034–6 (9). 76 Testi Rasponi 1924, 201 n. 1, suggests emending Laudicius to Acacius, the official mentioned by Theophanes. But Acacius was a military commander who was present at the lynching and was not sent by the court. Moreover, there is no a priori reason why Theophanes, who is the only writer to report the name of Acacius, should be more reliable than Maximian. The name Laudicius is attested in PLRE I, 495. 77 Benericetti 1924, 181 dates the voyage to 530 for unknown reasons. 78 Timothy IV is mentioned as an addressee in Novella 6 of Justinian, which may imply that he had some kind of working relationship with the Chalcedonian state. We owe this reference to P. Blaudeau. 75

16

Marcellinus Comes World history On Constantinople and Jerusalem

Marcellinus was an Illyrian, who served Justinian as cancellarius1 before the latter became emperor. He is mainly known for his extant Chronicle, a continuation of Jerome which ran until the death of Anastasius in 518; it was presumably published in 519, and in a second edition later in 534. It seems that he composed the first edition before he came to serve Justinian, and his appointment may have been the result of his literary accomplishment.2 He must have left the service of Justinian when the latter was appointed Caesar in 525 or became Augustus in 527. The second edition of 534, which ends with the victory in Africa, is highly positive about Justinian. Besides what Marcellinus tells us about himself, the major source for his life is the Institutions of Cassiodorus (c. 485–585), which refer to three works of Marcellinus. The Institutions are a work of the Vivarium period,3 and hence date to the 550s, possibly after 554 if one dates Cassiodorus’ return to after the pragmatica sanctio of that year, regulating ownership and other issues in post-conquest Italy.4 Whilst it is clear that Cassiodorus got to know Marcellinus’ work when he dwelt in Constantinople (c. 540–54) and took it back to Vivarium,5 the best way to explain the attention showered on him and the detailed knowledge of his career seems to be that Cassiodorus became acquainted with him personally.6 It seems probable, 1

He had to organize access to and the presentation of petitions to Justinian: Jones 1964, 603. Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.17.2. Croke 2001a, 28–9 dates the appointment to about 520. Cf. Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.29. 4 Bürsgens 2003, 17. The exact dates of Cassiodorus’ movements are unknown: see O’Donnell 1979, 135–6; Giardina 2006, 25; Björnlie 2013, 18. 5 O’Donnell 1979, 131–6; Croke 2001a, 238. 6 It should also be noted that the earliest user of Marcellinus Comes is Jordanes, writing in 552. Jordanes was also in contact with Cassiodorus (cf. Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017). In addition, Jordanes and the Continuator of Marcellinus, writing at the earliest in the early 550s (Croke 2001a, 223), both relied on the same source for events after 534. This demonstrates the high level of contact between early users of Marcellinus. 2 3

182

Historia?

183

then, that mentioning Marcellinus’ entire output was Cassiodorus’ way of paying tribute to him. If this reconstruction is correct, Marcellinus must have died after 540, the earliest possible moment that Cassiodorus arrived in Constantinople. T1 implies that Marcellinus was dead by the time the Institutions were written (that is, after 554). Besides the preserved Chronicle, Cassiodorus refers to two lost works. First, four books De temporum qualitatibus et positionibus locorum. Although this looks like a title, it is probably Cassiodorus’ description of the content. In all likelihood, so we argue, it was a world history with an explicit or implicit geographical component. Not much can be said about its date, except that it likely predates Cassiodorus’ return to Italy c. 554, assuming that he did not stay in touch with Marcellinus after his return. Second, a four-book description of Constantinople and Jerusalem: a work that was distinct from the aforementioned world history.7 Little can be said about its content, but the juxtaposition of Constantinople and Jerusalem does not suggest a traditional itinerary, but rather a panegyrical comparison of both, something that would fit into the context of the 530s (see below). It would also tie in well with the panegyrical intentions of the Chronicle, especially in its second edition of 534. By writing a work on two cities with a panegyrical intent addressed to Justinian, Marcellinus would appear to be anticipating the Buildings of Procopius. Marcellinus, then, was the author of three works: a world history, a description of Jerusalem and Constantinople, and a Chronicle that continued Jerome. That there must have been overlap between the Chronicle and the world history does not vitiate this reconstruction: Marcellinus’ contemporaries Jordanes and Cassiodorus did exactly the same (Romana and Getica, then Chronicle and History of the Goths). Although the description of Constantinople and Jerusalem falls outside the – h ­ istoriographical – scope of this volume, we include the fragment for the sake of completeness.

Historia? T1: Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.17.1 (Mynors 1937, 56 ll. 12–16; cf. Bürsgens 2003, 224 ll. 11–15) 7

It has been suggested that it is the same as De temporum …: Mommsen 1894a, 42; Schanz and Hosius 1922, 112; PLRE III, 711 (9). Croke 1984, 78 rightly argues that Cassiodorus treats them in separate places in his Institutions and as separate works.

184

Marcellinus Comes

Marcellinus etiam, quattuor libros de temporum qualitatibus et positio­ nibus locorum pulcherrima proprietate conficiens, itineris sui tramitem laudabiliter percurrit; quem vobis pariter dereliqui.

Marcellinus too has passed the course of his life in laudable fashion, completing four books on the events of the times and the locations of places with most decorous precision. I have likewise left him8 for you. Commentary This fragment derives from the section on ‘Christian historians’ (De ­historicis Christianis) of the Institutions. Cassiodorus first mentions authors of narrative works: Flavius Josephus, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical history, and then Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret.9 To this he adds Orosius and the present work of Marcellinus Comes. That group thus includes sacred history (Flavius Josephus), ecclesiastical history (Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret) and secular history (Orosius). Cassiodorus then shifts to writers of chronicles: first Eusebius again, then Jerome, Marcellinus Comes again, and Prosper. All these works are what we call chronica.10 The third genre to be reviewed is ‘On illustrious men’, as written by Jerome and Gennadius of Marseille.11 Cassiodorus’ careful classification by genre suggests that De temporum qualitatibus et positionibus locorum would have been a work that was narrative in nature, that is, not a mere collection of lists or a dictionary-like collection of names and concepts. It would seem logical to assume that it, too, like all the works mentioned in the section, was a history. Translations of this passage suggest something completely different and assume that Cassiodorus is referring to a real journey made by Marcellinus. Bürsgens 2003, 225 translates as follows: ‘Überdies verfasste Marcellinus auf seinem vortrefflich verlaufenen Reise vier Bücher von eigenwilliger Schönheit über Reiseerlebnisse und Topographie.’ Halporn and Vessey 2003, 150 follow the same interpretation: ‘I have also left you the work

 8

We take quem to refer to the author, Marcellinus. For a similar sequence of historians, see Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical history 5.24. 10 See the introduction p. 12. 11 Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.17.2. We have ranked this type of writing as a subgenre of biography: Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020, p. LXVII.  9

Historia?

185

of Marcellinus in four books, who discusses the nature of the times and includes a laudable and accurate account of the places he passed along the route of his journey.’12 Such translations misunderstand the Latin, something clearly shown in the violence they do to the syntax of the sentence, turning the main verb into a subordinated one, and attaching it moreover only to positionibus locorum (Halporn and Vessey) or turning it into a participle (Bürsgens). In fact, trames and iter both can mean ‘life’s path’ and here constitute a hendiadys. In fact, the sentence itineris sui tramitem laudabiliter percurrit means ‘he led a praiseworthy life’. It implies that by the time Cassiodorus was writing, Marcellinus was dead. The mistranslation also affects the description of the work by Cassiodorus. Temporum qualitates can hardly be ‘travel impressions’ (Bürsgens), nor, as we shall see, are positiones locorum ‘descriptions of places’. Let us look at the description in greater detail, for it holds the key to the correct understanding of the nature of the work. We cannot be certain that Cassiodorus gives us the exact title of Marcellinus’ work, for the expression quattuor libros de temporum qualitatibus et positionibus locorum could equally well be a description of its content (note the chiastic construction which may well stem from Cassiodorus). In fact, Cassiodorus does not give any exact title for specific works in this chapter, except those of Flavius Josephus: he is content to place the generic labels historia, chronica, and de viris illustribus at the beginning of each subsection. It is unlikely, then, that he is making an exception for Marcellinus Comes: what we have in front of us is a description of the work, not a title. Therefore, if we are to interpret the nature of the work, we have to start from the usage of Cassiodorus. Tempora is regularly used in Institutions 1.17 and always to mean ‘(past) times’, that is, it refers to past events. This is also the regular meaning of tempora in Cassiodorus.13 Such usage is consistent with the work of Marcellinus being classed among the church historians and Orosius: this work must have discussed past events. The expression temporum qualitates is unique, but Cassiodorus, Variae 7.11.2 has secundum temporum qualitatem, meaning ‘the nature of the times’, that is, how things are.14

12

Croke 2001a, 37, 44 also assumes that Cassiodorus refers to the travels of Marcellinus. A better translation is that of Pronay 2014, 77: ‘Aber auch Marcellinus, der vier Bücher über die Eigenart der geschichtlichen Epochen und über die Geographie der einzelnen Gegenden mit wunderbarer Angemessenheit verfasst hat, durchlief die Bahn seines Weges auf löbliche Art.’ 13 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 1.17.3, 1.20.1, 2.37, 3.1.1, 4.26.1. 14 Cassiodorus, Variae 7.11.2: Commercia civibus secundum temporum qualitatem aequabili moderatione dispone. In Institutions 1.1.1, qualitas is explicitly a synonym of natura, meaning broadly the ‘properties’ or ‘nature’ of a thing, but not its ‘essence’.

186

Marcellinus Comes

Elsewhere it can mean the (different) qualities or nature of places.15 In Exposition of the Psalms 87, qualitates are ‘the properties of ’.16 Qualitates temporum, then, does not refer to the general properties of ‘time’, but to the particular events of the times. An alternative interpretation, which we consider less likely, is to understand qualitates temporum as referring to the chronographical material, such as lists of rulers.17 The location of this work of Marcellinus among narrative works and not among chronicles, where his chronicle is cited, argues against this interpretation. The interpretation of positiones locorum is more straightforward. Although there are no parallels in Cassiodorus, his contemporary and acquaintance Jordanes defines the subject of his geographical section in the Getica as urbium locorumve positiones.18 There Jordanes uses Solinus, Pomponius Mela, and Orosius as sources – that is, narrative works, not lists or catalogues. The title of Solinus is De situ orbis terrarum, whilst Mela opens his De cosmographia with the words orbis situm. Situs and positio are synonyms,19 thus, it is likely that the second half of the description given by Cassiodorus refers to Marcellinus having offered a geographical description of the world.20 There is indeed a hint of a universal geographical interest in the last entry of Marcellinus’ Chronicle, where the

15

Cassiodorus, Exposition of the Psalms 1, l. 410: Quod tamen utrumque pro locorum qualitatibus reperis esse variatum, nam et viam peccatorum superius dixit et iter in bono positum est, sicut ait in alio psalmo: et illic iter est, in quo ostendam illi salutare dei; Exposition of the Psalms 87, l. 118: Et ideo pro locorum qualitate verbum hoc multifaria significatione variatur; Exposition of the Psalms 95, l. 223: Terram enim hic in bono debemus accipere, quod in scripturis divinis frequenter pro locorum qualitate invenis esse variatum. 16 Cassiodorus, Exposition of the Psalms 87, l. 225: Contra illa quae superius dicta sunt, dominus Christus cum fidelibus suis per id quod resurrecturus erat, clamare se dicit ad dominum: enumerans tribulationum diversarum gloriosissimas qualitates, ut talibus institutis commoniti firmarentur populi utique Christiani. Compare Gennadius’ description of Orosius (On illustrious men 40): Sane in primo libro descripsit positionem orbis Oceani interfusione et Tanai limitibus intercisam, situm locorum, nomina et numerum mores que gentium, qualitates regionum, initia bellorum et tyrannidis exordia finitimorum sanguine dedicata; Leo the Great, Tractatus 57 (CCL 138A), l. 100: Anni vitae nostrae et actionum temporalium qualitates nec in natura elementorum, nec in stellarum effectibus, sed in summi et veri dei potestate consistunt, cuius auxilium et misericordiam in omnibus quae recte cupimus, inplorare debemus. See also Orosius, Histories 4.11.7: diversae qualitates locorum means ‘all the areas, whatever they were like’ (tr. Fear 2010, 178). 17 Cf. Croke 1984, 79: ‘perhaps what qualitates signifies here is aspects of individual eras considered in the light of Christian chronology, their subdivision and comparison’. This position is restated in Croke 2001a, 36–7. 18 Jordanes, Getica 4. 19 Quintilian, Institutions of oratory 3.21.9. 20 Contrast Croke 1984, 78, who suggests perhaps an index of Christian topography (biblical?) and onomastics, or a description of cities founded in Christian times, or a layman’s guide to bishoprics. He considers it some sort of companion piece to the Chronicle, with a specifically Christian interest.

Historia?

187

reconquered province of Africa is described as ‘put by most people in the third part of the division of the world’.21 The study of the context and the phrasing of the description points in a clear direction: Marcellinus composed a narrative summary of history and a geographical description of the world. Hence, most likely his history was a world history, possibly from the Creation. Such narrative summaries did exist: Jordanes’ Romana is a slightly later example, and Marcellinus knew Orosius, whose Histories open with a geographical description of the world.22 Jordanes, too, includes a description of the world at the beginning of his Getica. B. Croke surmised that the work was divided into two parts, first two books on ‘times’ and then two books of geography.23 This may be so, but other divisions are equally possible: one might also imagine one book of geographical introduction attached to three books of history. Equally ­possible is that the history, composed of four books, was ordered geographically, as were Festus’ Breviarium and Procopius’ Wars or, earlier, Appian’s History, and that geography and history were intermingled throughout. Finally, another possibility is that Cassiodorus’ reference to geographical material simply alludes to the universal scope of the work. Indeed, Marcellinus Comes himself describes the Chronicle of Eusebius as follows: huius saeculi originem tempora annos regna virtutesque mortalium et variarum artium repertores omniumque paene provinciarum monumenta commemorans (‘recording the beginnings of this present era, its time span, years, kingdoms, and the good qualities of men as well as the inventors of the various arts and also the monuments from almost all regions’).24 If we had only this description, we could be forgiven for thinking that Eusebius’ Chronicle had a strong geographical component; we know, however, that geography is only used as a structuring principle for the various nations Eusebius records. Similarly, the fourth-century Expositio totius mundi states (§3) that the Hellenistic historians Berossus and Manetho covered de provinciis et temporibus sequentia, whereas their works were historical in scope.25 On such an understanding, Cassiodorus’ description of the content of Marcellinus’ work is a hendiadys, a stylistic device that Cassiodorus

21

Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle a. 534: quae in divisione orbis terrarum a plerisque in parte tertia posita est. 22 On the tradition started by Orosius, see Merrills 2005. 23 Croke 1984, 78. 24 Mommsen 1894a, 60 l. 2–4; tr. Croke 1995, 1. 25 For an overview and further references, see Dillery 2015.

188

Marcellinus Comes

was fond of.26 Our conclusion is thus that this work was a world history, with a geographical component. How this geographical aspect actually played out, we cannot tell. B. Croke argues that an addition in one eleventh-century manuscript of the Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes (Codex Sanctomerensis 697) derives from the De temporum qualitatibus et positionibus locorum.27 At the end of the year 518, which corresponds to the end of the first edition, a scribe inserted a description of the foundation of Dara.28 Certain details of the passage show that it probably dates to the (early) sixth century.29 As such, it is an example of the remarkable interest that sixth-century sources show in the foundation of Dara.30 Yet its identification as an actual fragment falls foul of the methodological principles espoused in this volume, viz. that one can only identify as fragments portions of text nominally ascribed to an author. There are also other reasons to doubt Croke’s argumentation. He reads the opening sentence as indicating that it was taken from a description of a certain type of cities, interpreting huiuscemodi to mean ‘of a c­ertain type’:31 Daras civitate huiuscemodi condita in Mesopotamia.32 This would fit with a work on geography and imply that the geographical part of De temporum qualitatibus et positionibus locorum was organized according to certain types of cities. In fact, in later and medieval sources, ­huius(ce)modi can also be used adverbially to mean ‘in such a way’.33 Had one wished to say ‘a city of this kind’, it would have been more idiomatic to put huiuscemodi before civitas. As the sentence stands, it is the perfect introductory statement for the account of the foundation that follows: ‘the city of Dara was founded in such a way in Mesopotamia’. Moreover, the organization Croke surmises for the work of Marcellinus Comes would be unique for a geographical work: all the works we know of are either descriptions of the world organized by regions, or lists of places (cities, 26

See, e.g., Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.17.2: Prosper Tiro writes ab Adam ad Genserici tempora et urbis depredationem; chronica vera, quae sunt imagines historiarum brevissimaeque commemorationes temporum. 27 Croke 1984. 28 Mommsen 1894a, 100 l. 21–101 l. 5. 29 Merten 1906, 155; Croke 1984. 30 Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, Chronicle 90; John Malalas, Chronicle 16.10; Procopius, Buildings 2.1.4– 2.3.26; Pseudo-Zachariah, Ecclesiastical history 7.6; Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical history 3.37. See Ensslin 1926; Croke and Crow 1983. 31 Croke 1984, 82. 32 The sentence is problematic: Daras usually remains undeclined, rendering this sentence an ablative absolute. As printed by Mommsen 1894a, 100 l. 21, the ablative absolute seems to form a sentence of its own. It could make somewhat more grammatical sense, if one accepts that the scribe intended it to be appended to the last entry: [Anastasius] regnavit annos viginti septem menses duos dies viginti novem, Daras civitate huiuscemodi condita in Mesopotamia (‘Anastasius reigned for 27 years, 2 months and 19 days, when the city of Dara was founded in Mesopotamia in this way’). 33 Blaise s.v.; DMLBS s.v. huiusmodi (3).



De civitate Constantinopolitana et de urbe Hierosolimorum?

189

mountains, rivers), or accounts of roads and travels. No work that we know of is organized according to types of cities. Croke also suggests that the reason why the scribe copied the addition into the Chronicle was because he had found it in a work by the same author.34 This is possible, but the practice of adding to, and rewriting, texts with additional information not derived from the same author was very common in Late Antiquity.35 There is no reason to presume that the scribe, who also had access to Orosius,36 could not have used works unknown to us. Finally, Croke’s argument relies on a particular understanding of De temporum qualitatibus et positionibus locorum as a kind of handbook, which, as we have argued, it was not. Thus, in our understanding, Marcellinus Comes wrote a narrative world history, in addition to his Chronicle. How important the geographical element was in this work cannot be determined, but it is evident that it stands in a tradition of integrating geography and history, as found most clearly in Orosius and as later practised by Isidore of Seville and the Venerable Bede, among others.37 The only thing we can say about its date is that it must predate Cassiodorus’ departure from Constantinople for Italy, on the assumption that the work itself, or at least knowledge of its existence, was taken back to Italy by him.

De civitate Constantinopolitana et de urbe Hierosolimorum? T2: Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.25.1 (Mynors 1937, 66 ll. 15–18; cf. Bürsgens 2003, 248 ll. 5–8) Marcellinus quoque, de quo iam dixi, pari cura legendus est; qui Constantinopolitanam civitatem et urbem Hierosolimorum quattuor libellis minutissima ratione descripsit.

Marcellinus too, of whom I have already spoken, should be read with equal care. In four short books he has described the city of Constantinople and the city of Jerusalem in great detail.38

34

Croke 1984, 82. See Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020, XIV–XV. 36 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle a. 392.1: cf. Croke 1984, 80. 37 Cf. Merrills 2005. 38 In the Institutions, libellus has the connotation of brevity: Institutions 1.4.3 (a letter by Athanasius), 1.25.1: libellum Iulii Oratoris (the brief handbook of Julius Honorius). 35

190

Marcellinus Comes Commentary

Cassiodorus’ brief section on cosmographi lists four works: Julius Honorius, author of a set of lists of places; Marcellinus Comes; Dionysius the Periegete, author of a poetical description of the world; and Ptolemy. In comparison with the universal scope of the other works, that of Marcellinus is very specific. Cassiodorus offers a description of the content, descriptions of Jerusalem and Constantinople.39 Most late antique descriptions of Jerusalem were the work of pilgrims. Besides mentions of Jerusalem in the account of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux and Egeria, we first encounter works entirely dedicated to describing Jerusalem c. 400 with the so-called Short description of Jerusalem, followed by Eucherius c. 440 and Theodosius c. 503.40 Descriptions of Constantinople are rarer still: we have a Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae from the years 424–7,41 before we get Procopius’ Buildings (554) and more specific descriptions, such as the Ecphrasis of the Hagia Sophia by Paul the Silentiary (563). The earliest certain account of the foundation of Constantinople seems to be that of Hesychius of Miletus, around 500.42 The Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai (eighth century), a text generally deemed unreliable, attributes an account of the foundation of Constantinople to the sophist Troilus (around 400), and two further accounts to a certain Eleusius and Eutychianus.43 Both could be identified with individuals living under the reign of Constantius II. Even earlier, the biographers of Constantine, Praxagoras and Bemarchius, had addressed the foundation or at least the construction of certain buildings in Constantinople.44 Scholars have been tempted to understand the lost work of Marcellinus as a travel account or even to identify it with some of the works just listed.45 But there is no evidence for such an identification. 39

PLRE II, 710–11 (9) states that the work described a journey from Constantinople to Jerusalem. This error seems to stem from the collapsing of T1 and T2. See the collection of Wilkinson 1977. 41 Matthews 2012; Havaux 2017. 42 BNJ 390 F7. 43 Cf. Janiszewski 2006, 270–2, 275–6; CHAP s.v. 44 Praxagoras: FGrHist 219. Bemarchius: Libanius, Oration 1.39, with Woods 2006 and Janiszewski 2006, 352–81; CHAP s.v. The suggestion by Raimondi 2003 that the oration was about the city of Constantinople is implausible: the passage clearly implies that the subject is a building, not the entire city. 45 Riese 1878, xxxiii; CPG 1270 thinks that the Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae was part of Marcellinus’ work. Croke 2001a, 39 suggests that the section on Constantinople described its foundation and statues as did later Byzantine patriography. On p. 42 he suggests that the Short description of Jerusalem may have been by Marcellinus. He situates the description of Jerusalem in a pilgrimage context (40–7) and even suggests that Marcellinus went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (43). 40



De civitate Constantinopolitana et de urbe Hierosolimorum?

191

The description given by Cassiodorus suggests, in fact, a different context. The juxtaposition of Constantinople and Jerusalem in a single work is obviously not coincidental, especially not when contextualized in the 530s, when we know Marcellinus was writing. In 532 Justinian decided to build the Hagia Sophia, which was consecrated in 537. With the building, Justinian was said to have tried to match Solomon’s building of the temple in Jerusalem.46 The victory over the Vandals in 534 resulted in part of the booty taken by Titus from Jerusalem in 70 and captured by Geiseric in 455 being returned to Constantinople and then to Jerusalem.47 It was Justinian’s express aim to enhance the sense of a Christian triumph in this way.48 In the wake of the Samaritan revolt of 529, Justinian began construction of the new church of Maria in Jerusalem (‘Nea’) in 531: it was finished in 543.49 It has been argued that, being second in expense and size only to the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, this church was intended to surpass and symbolically supplant Solomon’s temple.50 Justinian also constructed a cardo maximus in Jerusalem, and invested in numerous other buildings across Palestine. Jerusalem was important enough to Justinian to include it in his pentarchy of five patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), notwithstanding Jerusalem’s lesser influence in church matters at the time. The major role played by Palestinian monks in the defence of Chalcedon may also have contributed to this decision.51 After Marcellinus, Procopius would dedicate much space in his Buildings to Constantinople, somewhat less to Jerusalem.52 The 530s, then, were the glory days of Justinian’s reign53 and the period when he sought to make his mark in Constantinople and Jerusalem. Cassiodorus clearly sees Marcellinus as loyal to Justinian,54 and this renders it likely that he would write a work on Constantinople and Jerusalem that was panegyrical in tone – indeed, such a tone can also be detected in his Chronicle. Earlier panegyrical works devoted to Constantinople, like 46

Procopius, Buildings 1.1.20–78; Romanus Melodus, Hymn 54; John Malalas, Chronicle 18.86; Paul the Silentiary, Description of the Hagia Sophia; Agathias, Histories 5.9.2; Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical history 4.31. Cf. Graham 2010. 47 Procopius, Wars 4.9.5. 48 Meier 2003, 167–8. 49 Maraval 1985, 70; Sivan 2008, 219–25; Leppin 2011, 201; Trampedach 2015: cf. Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas 73; Procopius, Buildings 5.6. On the Samaritan revolt, see Shalev-Hurvitz 2014, 233–4. 50 Amitzur 1996; Tsafrir 2001; Graham 2008, 2010; Trampedach 2015. 51 On Justinian and Jerusalem, see Trampedach 2001, 2005, and 2015; Shahid 2005; Graham 2010; Geva and Gutfeld 2012, 491–4. For wider context, see Heil 2017. 52 Procopius, Buildings 5.6. 53 Meier 2003, 101–233, esp. 167–8. 54 Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.17.1. This is also obvious from his Chronicle.

192

Marcellinus Comes

those of Bemarchius and Praxagoras, also had a clear interest in buildings, and from the age of Justinian we have Procopius’ Buildings and Paul the Silentiary. In his Chronicle, Marcellinus is well informed about the buildings of Constantinople,55 but he says far less about Jerusalem. He may have travelled there, but he could just as well have relied on accounts and information gathered in Constantinople. L. Graham has argued that Justinian sought to associate and compare himself with Solomon, or at least that such an image was circulating, even if it is not strongly marked in the texts.56 Solomon, as the great builder among Jewish kings, would be a good point of comparison. If the Chronicle does indeed demonstrate that Marcellinus took a pro-papal position, as argued by B. Croke,57 then it seems unlikely that this work, which praises Justinian, could have been written after c. 545, when the Three Chapters Controversy stirred up deep tensions between the bishop of Rome, Western bishops, and the emperor. One can never know whether or not loyalty to the emperor trumped loyalty to the pope, but it may be significant that both Cassiodorus and Jordanes were critical of Justinian’s ecclesiastical policies in the 540s.58 What precisely the intent and shape of the work were, we cannot know. But the interpretation offered here, we argue, makes the most sense given the general understanding of Marcellinus as an author loyal to Justinian and the likely context of its composition. T3: Tegernsee Collection, Letter 231 (Plechl 2002, 261 ll. 16–21) Rogo benivolentiam tuam, dilectissime, ut aliquos ex subiectis mihi transmittere digneris, vel scilicet Plinium de naturali historia, vel Ptolomeum de cosmographia, vel Blavium de gestis Gottorum, vel Marcellinum de situ Hierosolymorum, et Constantinopolitanorum, vel Lactantium de ira Dei, vel Augustinum contra Julianum, vel aliquod opus Tertulliani. Hieronymum in Iob, vel Leviticum magnopere desiderarem, si usquam haberi sperarem.

55

Croke 2001a, 107–16. Even in Codex Iustinianus 1.1.8, which according to Graham 2010, 157 ‘specifically refers to Solomon’, this is to Solomon as the writer of Proverbs. It may be significant that Procopius refers three times to Solomon, in Wars (4.9.5–9, 5.12.42) and in Buildings (6.2.22): Graham 2010, 154. 57 Croke 2001a, 98. 58 Cf. Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017. 56



De civitate Constantinopolitana et de urbe Hierosolimorum?

193

I ask for your kindness, dearest, so that you would deign to send me some of the following, that is, either Pliny’s Natural history, or Ptolemy’s Geography, or Blavius’ The deeds of the Goths, or Marcellinus’ On Constantinople and Jerusalem, or Lactantius’ On the anger of God, or Augustine’s Against Julian, or any work by Tertullian. Jerome’s Commentary on Job, or Leviticus I would greatly desire, if I had hope that they had it somewhere. Commentary This letter, between two unknown correspondents, comes from the letter collection of the Abbey of Tegernsee and is dated to before 1186.59 We should not understand this letter as a witness to the presence of Marcellinus’ work in a medieval library.60 In fact, it seems that the correspondent had read Cassiodorus’ Institutions, chapter 1.25 of which mentions both Marcellinus and Ptolemy. In addition, the reference to Blavius is to Ablabius (FHistLA 13), the lost author quoted by Jordanes: it is most likely that the correspondent had read Jordanes. That the author was in search of books he was unable to find is shown by the fact that Ptolemy only became accessible in Latin in the fifteenth century.61 In other words, this testimony is not an independent witness to the works it cites. 59

Plechl 2002, 260–1, who suggests the author may be writing from Tegernsee. Croke 1984, 75 n. 10 and 2001, 37–8 misattributes the letter to Rupert of Tegernsee. On this collection of letters, see Repertorium “Geschichtsquellen des deutschen Mittelalters”, s.v. Epistolarum collectio Tegernseensis saec. XII: http://www.geschichtsquellen.de/repOpus_02165.html. 60 Croke 1984, 78 n. 10 and 2001a, 37–8. 61 Plechl 2002, 261.

17

Cassiodorus History of the Goths

Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator started his administrative career as consiliarius to his father, who was praefectus praetorio from 503 until 507 after having been governor of Bruttium and Lucania, the province in which his family estates were located. The younger Cassiodorus was quaestor palatii between 507 and 511, and in 514 he was elected consul. After a long period without formal office, he became magister officiorum in 523. All these offices were held under Theoderic the Great. After the latter’s death and under his successor Athalaric, a Gothic faction seeking to limit the power held by Romans and by Amalasuintha, Theoderic’s daughter and mother of Athalaric, became dominant at court. Therefore, in 527, Cassiodorus was dismissed, but he returned in 533 as praefectus praetorio when Amalasuintha once again dominated the court. Cassiodorus served the subsequent kings Theodohad (534–6) and Vitigis (536–40). It is generally presumed that at the defeat of the Goths he went with Vitigis to Constantinople in 540, and that he only returned to his estate at Squillace, the Vivarium, after the pragmatic sanction of 554, which concluded the war against the Goths. He spent the rest of his already long life in monastic seclusion and learning, before he died after 580.1 The best-known parts of his literary oeuvre are the Variae, a book collecting official letters (ghost-)written by Cassiodorus, and the Institutions, an overview of the books that Cassiodorus believed ought to be used in a Christian education. Cassiodorus also composed four historiographical works, of which two are fully preserved. The Chronica is a consularia, that is, an annotated list of consuls, preceded by a chronographic section that starts with the Creation. It was published in 519, on the occasion of the consulate of Eutharic, the husband of Amalasuintha and thus the

1

PLRE II, 263–9 (4); O’Donnell 1979; Krautschik 1983; Barnish 1992a; Kakridi 2005; Giardina 2006; Björnlie 2013.

194



An Ethnographic History

195

presumed successor of Theoderic.2 The Historia tripartita is a twelvebook ecclesiastical history, composed on the basis of named excerpts from the Greek church historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret and thus covering history from 324 until 439. Inspired by a similar work in Greek by Theodore Lector, it was composed during Cassiodorus’ stay in Constantinople, probably after 544/5 and certainly before 551/2.3 Going back to a period of ecclesiastical history on which all church factions, Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians, could agree, it sought to depict earlier church–state relations in such a way that readers would realize how much Justinian’s handling of the Three Chapters controversy deviated from that ideal.4 Probably only partially preserved is the Ordo generis Cassiodororum or the so-called Anecdoton Holderi, a brief account of the literary production of Boethius, Symmachus the Younger, and Cassiodorus himself. As discussed above, it probably reflects Cassiodorus’ attempt to align himself with the perception in Constantinople that Symmachus and Boethius were tyrannically murdered by Theoderic and, by emphasizing his relations with them, to deflect the suggestion that he had profited from their death.5 The fourth historiographical work is the History of the Goths, to be dated between 515 and 526 (see below). It is lost but we have some references to it in the Variae. In addition, in 551 Jordanes summarized it in his Getica,6 but he also added material, making it difficult to determine to what degree the Getica reflects the History of the Goths. Given the amount of discussion this question has generated, we shall start by building a picture of the History of the Goths based on all the testimonies, without privileging the Getica.

An Ethnographic History We have four descriptions of the content of the work, three by Cassiodorus himself (T1–2, T4, though the last of these is mediated through an excerptor and the other two are put into the mouth of other individuals) and one by Jordanes (T3). Jordanes calls the work de origine actusque Getarum, which closely resembles the manuscript title of his own Getica. The other witnesses, by Cassiodorus, all use historia (T1), and more specifically 2

Mommsen 1894b, 109–61; Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 41–3. Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 14. 4 Hanslik and Jacob 1952; Hanslik 1971; Mazza 1986; Beatrice 2001b; Chiesa and Castaldi 2004, 74–81; Delacenserie 2016. 5 See Symmachus the Younger (FHistLA 14). 6 For full discussion, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. 3

196 Cassiodorus historia Gothorum (T2) or historia Gothica (T4). None of these descriptions is a title, but given the consistency of Cassiodorus’ own vocabulary, it is very likely that he would have entitled his history historia, possibly with Gothorum or Gothica added. The idea that Jordanes preserves the original title of Cassiodorus’ history7 rests on a misinterpretation of T3 and on the tacit assumption that Jordanes merely copied Cassiodorus.8 Regarding the content, the witnesses give different emphases, which can be explained by the specific function of each statement. King Athalaric (T1) emphasizes the Amal genealogy as well as the focus on Gothic origins, and, in T2, Cassiodorus has an imaginary interlocutor say that it was a history of Gothic success. Jordanes (T3) says that the work followed the genealogy of the Amals and the succession of Gothic kings, whilst the summary offered in the Ordo generis Cassiodororum (T4) shifts attention to the ethnographic elements (origin, place of dwelling, and customs). All these features (genealogies, origins, success, and description of customs) can be found in Jordanes’ Getica and sum up quite well what this work discusses. We can thus assume that they were present in Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths.9 This already gives us an idea of the literary positioning of the work, for all these features were an integral part of ancient ethnography.10 Ancient ethnography was usually embedded in other works, especially historiography, with the Germania of Tacitus being a notable exception. Generally, ethnographic accounts have an interest in the origin of the people discussed, a feature that can be observed in Tacitus,11 Ammianus Marcellinus,12 and Procopius.13 Indeed, connections between ethnography and Cassiodorus have been hinted at before. Mommsen noticed the similarity in the description of the History of the Goths and the title of Tacitus’ Germania (De origine et situ Germanorum).14 The ethnographic excursus on the Huns and Alans by Ammianus Marcellinus15 is known to underpin

7

Luiselli 1980, 238; Zecchini 1993, 194; Amici 2002, 7; Vitiello 2006a, 92. Goffart 2006, 58 rightly rejects the idea. 8 Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b reviews the scholarship on the last issue. 9 Goffart 1988, 35–8, arguing that the History of the Goths was a series of biographies of Amal rulers, is thus mistaken. 10 On this type of writing, see most recently Skinner 2012; Almagor and Skinner 2013; Kaldellis 2013. 11 Tacitus, Germania 1. 12 Ammianus Marcellinus 31.2.1. 13 E.g. Procopius, Wars 1.10.6, 8.5 (Huns and Goths). On ethnography in Procopius, see Revanoglou 2005. 14 Mommsen 1882, xl–xliv. 15 Ammianus Marcellinus 31.2.



An Ethnographic History

197

part of the Getica’s account, which may well go back to Cassiodorus.16 When we look at discussions of foreign nations in late antique historiography, an interesting pattern emerges. Ammianus’ digression on the Huns does not offer a history of its leaders (indeed, they are depicted as being somehow democratic in organization),17 but for nations more civilized in his eyes Ammianus includes accounts of their history.18 This can be observed in Greek historians, too: Agathias, for example, goes into great detail on Persian history,19 as does Procopius for the Armenians.20 In Procopius, other, less important and less civilized, groups, get a mere description of their customs.21 If this is a meaningful pattern, Cassiodorus’ decision to offer an account of the royal succession situates the Goths among the higher, cultivated peoples, as one would expect given the work’s expressly positive attitude towards the Goths (T2). One element offers further support for this understanding of the History of the Goths as growing out of the classical literary tradition of ethnography. T2 states that Cassiodorus created his account on the basis of written sources, which preserved material that was unknown to Gothic recollection. This implies that the core of the narrative derives from classical sources and that Gothic recollections are drawn on only intermittently. One also observes this pattern in Jordanes’ Getica. Ancient ethnography was essentially based on earlier witnesses that were reworked into a new account, and rarely incorporated information drawn from observation or eyewitnesses. Cassiodorus, then, did what historians before him did if they wanted to write, for example, about the Germans. Moreover, he had to do so: unlike Procopius’ excursus on the Armenians or Agathias’ on the Persians, there was no coherent Gothic history on which to draw. As a matter of fact, T1 implicitly recognizes the fact that Cassiodorus created a Gothic history. As we argue below, the famous phrase ‘from Gothic origins he made Roman history’ (T1) is more precise than sometimes assumed. It does not just mean that Gothic history was integrated into Roman history but also that what was hitherto a Gothic family pedigree had now become a history. A history is more than an account of origins, more

16

Jordanes, Getica 116–38 with Heather 1989, 111–18. See below on which parts from the Getica might derive from Cassiodorus. 17 Ammianus Marcellinus 31.2.7. 18 Ammianus Marcellinus 23.6 (Persians), 15.9 (Gauls). Ammianus does not offer a history of the Saracens (14.4). 19 Agathias, Histories 2.23–7, 4.24.1–30.5. 20 Procopius, Wars 1.5. See further Traina 2018. 21 Procopius, Wars 4.6.5–13 (Moors).

198 Cassiodorus than a lineage: it is a coherent and chronological account of events. With Cassiodorus’ history, the fullness of a historical account was now available for the Gothic past. Thus, the sentence also indicates that Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths was rooted in the ethnographic tradition but went beyond it to offer the Goths a proper history. At any rate, contrary to what has sometimes been asserted,22 Cassiodorus offers a thoroughly Roman view on the Goths, even if he occasionally relied on Gothic material and sought to please Theoderic.

Date and Aim We have a specific terminus ante quem for the publication of the work, 1 September 533, the date of the earliest witness (T1).23 T4 states that the work was composed at the behest of Theoderic, which would put the work before 30 August 526. Many scholars have deduced from T1 that Athalaric, Theodoric’s successor, was the focus of the work and suggested that though Theoderic gave the order, the work was only completed under Athalaric.24 As we argue in the commentary below, this rests on a misinterpretation 22

Especially by scholars who emphasize the impact of Gothic oral traditions on Cassiodorus, most prominently Wolfram 1994, 2003a, and 2009, who uses the term origo Gothica to talk about the Getica, as if it represents a truly Gothic narrative. The scepticism of Goffart 1988 is well warranted, even if there seem to be some snippets of Gothic information in the Getica (Täckholm 1969, 273; Kolendo 1986; Christensen 2002, 270–1; Coumert 2007, 78–83; Ghosh 2016, 46–59; Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b, with a further review.) For a measured yet still optimistic assessment, see Heather 1989, 105 and 1991, 5–6. 23 Cappuyns 1939, 1366, picked up by Momigliano 1960a, 194 and followed by others (Barnish 1984; Mortensen 1987; Tönnies 1989, 19), argued that Cassiodorus updated his own history and that Jordanes summarized a second edition of 551. This speculative hypothesis has been extensively criticized: O’Donnell 1979, 271–2; Baldwin 1984; Croke 1987; Bradley 1993, 222–6; Christensen 2002, 94–102; Swain 2014, 21–3. The hypothesis was meant to support another assumption, namely that the Getica is entirely derivative from Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths: cf. Schirren 1858; Mommsen 1882, i–lii; Weissensteiner 1994a. But scholars have highlighted Jordanes’ own input: Giordano 1973; Reydellet 1981, 259–94; Heather 1991, 48; Bradley 1993, 222 (cautious); Swain 2010; Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. See also the status quaestionis in Anton 1994, 275–8; Buonomo 1997. 24 Mommsen 1882, xli; van de Wyver 1931, 249 (who also allows for an earlier date, 519–23); Cappuyns 1939, 1366 (519–22); Momigliano 1960a, 217; Wagner 1967, 43 (before 526); Schwartz 1983, 276; Barnish 1984, 341; Goffart 1988, 32–5; Tönnies 1989, 7–8; Moorhead 1992, 202; Zecchini 1993, 194, 198 and 2011, 206; Weissensteiner 1994a, 315 claims that T1 is the official notice of publication and hence that the work dates from 533; Christensen 2002, 79; Croke 2003, 362; Vitiello 2014b, 656. Two scholars have suggested a date later than 533. Luiselli 1980, 228, followed by Amici 2002, 9 suggests 526–37/8 on the basis of the increased interest in Gothic history in Variae books 8–12, which would reflect Cassiodorus’ parallel activity as an historian. Silvestre 1997, 94 suggests that the History ended in 538, because Jordanes, Getica 313 closes with the Roman conquest of Italy. This presupposes, obviously, that Jordanes merely copied Cassiodorus. T1 shows both proposals to be wrong.



Date and Aim

199

of T1. Moreover, T4 most likely means that Theoderic was the dedicatee. Thus, the terminus ante quem can be lowered to August 526. Regarding the terminus post quem, it is often assumed that the History of the Goths postdates the Chronicle, which was published early in 519 on the occasion of Eutharic’s consulate.25 But there is no way to prove the priority of the chronicle over the history. There is a general similarity in the coverage of the second half of Theodoric’s reign in Jordanes and the Chronicle,26 which suggests that the History covered the same terrain. This is only logical for two works from the same author. Both works belong to different genres, and if the assumption seems to be that Cassiodorus first tried his hand at a ‘low’ genre (chronicle), this disregards the fact that the chronicle legitimizes Eutharic’s consulate by casting him as the end point of more than a millennium of Roman consuls. The format of the chronicle, and the generic restrictions that come with it, were chosen for a particular reason. As a consequence, we ought not to make any assumptions about the temporal priority of the Chronicle or the History of the Goths. Stronger if still tentative evidence for a date can be derived from the Amal genealogy found in Jordanes, which is generally agreed to derive from Cassiodorus.27 The genealogy builds up towards the reunion of the Spanish and Italian branches of the Amals through the marriage of Eutharic and Theoderic’s daughter Amalasuintha. The marriage took place in 515, which is the earliest possible moment that the genealogy would make sense.28 If the marriage makes for one suitable occasion for the publication of Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths, the birth of Athalaric in 516 or 51829 would be another. T1 allows for the possibility that Athalaric was included in Cassiodorus’ genealogy, even if this is by no means certain. If he was, 516 or 518 would be the terminus post quem. A third possible occasion comes in 519. After the death of Anastasius in 512, the emperor Justin I recognized Eutharic as the 25

Fridh 1973, x; Scharf 1991, 616; Arnold 2014, 42 n. 19. Related to this is the assumption that what was in the Chronicle was also in the History: Croke 1987; Vitiello 2014a, 349. This may be the case, but is far from necessary. At any rate, there was bound to be much more material in a history of twelve books than could fit in consularia. 26 Vitiello 2014b. 27 Jordanes, Getica 79–81. For its likely Cassiodorean origin, see the commentary ad loc. in Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. 28 Barnish 1984, 338 has argued against such an early date with the argument that Cassiodorus did not have an official function between 511/12 and 523, was hence not at court, and therefore was not in a position to collect the oral evidence he needed. This would only have been possible after becoming magister officiorum in 523. Yet Cassiodorus wrote a Chronicle in praise of Eutharic in 519, without any official function, and thus may well have written a history at that time. Moreover, as we have seen, oral evidence was not important for the history. 29 PLRE II, 175–6.

200 Cassiodorus legitimate heir to Theoderic’s rule, adopted him as son-in-arms and made him consul for 519. If this was the occasion, the history would have been published about the same time as the Chronicle.30 The latter is dedicated to Eutharic, and the history to Theoderic: Cassiodorus would thus have paid his respects to both, and, as the social prestige of a history was higher than that of a chronicle, he would have done so whilst underlining the hierarchy of the court. We know of no occasions after 519 but before 526 for which the dynastic focus on Eutharic would be understandable. Settling on a date between 515 and 526 is impossible. T1 has been wrongly understood to attest to a focus on Athalaric (see below): in this interpretation the History of the Goths would have served to legitimate his rule and was, it follows, probably published at his birth.31 Yet, as R. Krautschik rightly points out, simply being the grandson of Theoderic and the son of his designated heir made Athalaric legitimate anyway.32 One could not be of better birth in Gothic Italy. Krautschik suggests that the aim of the history was rather to shore up the legitimacy of Eutharic, who was of rather obscure origins and whose Amal connection is difficult to verify. This would argue in favour of an early date, when Eutharic had been selected as husband for Amalasuintha. By 519 the work would have little use in terms of legitimation, for by that year the emperor had accepted Eutharic’s position as Theoderic’s heir and consul.33

30

O’Donnell 1979, 44–7 argues for 519, suggesting that Jordanes excised panegyrical references to Eutharic, whom he knew to be dead. This is unprovable. Krautschik 1983, 34 allows for the earlier dates, as well; see also Viscido 1992, 55. Luiselli 1980 argues that the Chronicle does not give a particular place to the Goths and hence that Cassiodorus was not yet interested in Gothic history at that time. He therefore dates the History much later. The argument disregards the generic differences between both works: consularia could not accommodate the same Gothic focus as the History. Moreover, the Chronicle served to demonstrate that Eutharic represented the continuation of Roman history and institutions. 31 Gutschmid 1894, 310. 32 Krautschik 1983, 31–2. 33 Bradley 1966, 74–9 argues that the references to the Vandals in the Getica are generally neutral and that Cassiodorus therefore wrote before 523, when relations soured again. This is hard to verify, as the Vandals are clearly deprecated in the Getica. Amory 1997, 68 argues that the work reflects the shift towards an ethnic rhetoric in Theoderic’s discourse, visible in the Variae from 523 onwards. This does not help us much, as we have no letters from the period between 507/11 and 523. One possible argument for the end date of the History of the Goths would be to assign Jordanes’ account of the death of Theoderic to Cassiodorus (Getica 304). In fact, there are good reasons to doubt whether Jordanes derived his account of the death of Theoderic from Cassiodorus. After the Gothic victory over the Franks of 508 and the Visigothic succession of 511, Jordanes clearly shifts to his own material, narrating the Visigothic succession to his own day (Getica 302–3) – material that must be his own. He then switches to the Ostrogothic succession and Byzantine conquest (Getica 304–13), again, material that must be his own. The account of Theoderic’s death and succession (Getica 304) is, thus, surrounded by material that must have been composed by Jordanes himself. In other words, the victory over the Franks



Date and Aim

201

So far, all arguments for finding a specific date between 515 and 526 have presupposed that the History of the Goths had a direct political purpose, namely the legitimation of a particular member of the house of Theoderic. It may therefore be useful to briefly compare the legitimizing strategies employed in the Chronicle and the History of the Goths. We shall see that the nature of the argument used in the History of the Goths makes it much more difficult to tie the work to a specific moment. In the 510s Theoderic was clearly considering his succession, since he was already advanced in age (he was about sixty years old). The absence of a son made the succession a tricky one. We have no sources on Eutharic, who married Theoderic’s daughter Amalasuintha in 515, that predate the moment he was anointed as the chosen successor. For us, then, he comes out of nowhere. What we do see, however, is that in his Chronicle and in his History of the Goths, Cassiodorus makes two different cases for his legitimacy. The Chronicle casts Eutharic entirely in the role of the Roman consul, making him the last person in a continuous series of the highest magistrates since 509 BC. By prefacing the work with a brief history of the world since the Creation, the position of Eutharic as the culmination of a vast stretch of history is underscored. The Chronicle records his marriage with Amalasuintha in 515, but otherwise makes little of the Amal genealogy that is so important in the History of the Goths. Indeed, the Chronicle emphasizes how Eutharic, as a consul, gained the favour of senate and people, Goths and Romans in Rome and, later, in Ravenna.34 Combining occasion and literary format, the Chronicle thus suggests legitimacy through institutional continuity. If the idea of institutional continuity with the Empire can also be sensed in Jordanes’ Getica, its chronological backbone is twofold: the succession of Gothic kings and the genealogy of a single family, the Amals.35 This does not reflect a change in the way Theoderic legitimized his rule in the time since the Chronicle was written, that is, a departure from the earlier emphasis on the shared political fortunes of Goths and Romans towards an argument that emphasized Gothic blood.36 Rather, the literary form chosen influences the type of argument made. As we have noted above, of 508 and the Visigothic succession of 511 is the latest material that can, in all likelihood, be attributed to Cassiodorus. This is in line with the terminus post quem of 515. 34 As did Theoderic earlier: Chronicle 1339. 35 See below on T1. 36 Pace Amory 1997, 45–8, 68. See the critical remarks by Arnold 2014, 172. The argument presupposes the temporal priority of the History over the Chronicle, which is not certain. Wes 1967, 174 suggests that Cassiodorus had to correct the anti-Gothic history of Symmachus the Younger. In fact, there are no indications that Symmachus was anti-Gothic: see FHistLA 14.

202 Cassiodorus the History of the Goths is heavily indebted to classical ethnography and logically has an emphasis on the continuity of the Gothic nation. It constructs an argument for the Amal dynasty’s right to rule on the basis of its distinguished history. In a work that focuses on the history of the Goths as a distinct and age-old nation, it would be much harder to make an argument for continuity with the institutions of the Roman Empire. Even so, it is possible that Cassiodorus touched upon political continuity in Italy. In Getica 295 Jordanes signals how Theoderic, after his defeat of Odoacer, took off his Gothic dress and, on the advice of the emperor Zeno, ‘put on the famous royal cloak, as if he were the ruler of Goths and Romans’. Indeed, if the Getica represents Odoacer as putting an end to the Roman Empire in the West, Theoderic is depicted as restoring lordship over Italy to Zeno. How much of this section goes back to Cassiodorus is uncertain, but even if it does, it is still not a statement of institutional continuity with Roman rule. Theoderic rules as the successor of Odoacer, who stood outside Roman political structures, but with the acknowledgement of Zeno. This is clearly a different justification for rulership than that made by the insertion of Eutharic among the Roman consuls. The History of the Goths, then, puts forward a claim that the Amals were, by the fifth century, fit to be the ruling house of the Goths – a claim that evolved into an insistence on the fitness of the Amal Theoderic to rule over both Goths and Romans in Italy. Such an argument supports the claims of Theoderic as well as those of his successors, making it suitable for any moment between 515 and 526. Another supposition underpinning the desire to fix the date of the History to a politically significant moment is the idea that Cassiodorus was a propagandist of the court. Indeed, the History of the Goths was written by someone who was reasonably close to Theoderic, and it reflects the sensibilities of his court. As M. Vitiello has observed,37 Cassiodorus barely discusses the years after 511, which were difficult for the Ostrogothic kingdom – or at least, they are absent from Jordanes’ Getica and from the Chronicle. Unsurprisingly, Cassiodorus has been interpreted as a mouthpiece of the court, an interpretation enhanced by the fact that the Variae is exactly that: a series of letters in the name of officials and rulers but composed by Cassiodorus.38 P. Heather has nuanced the idea, arguing that it was the ‘calculated flattery of a loyal admirer’.39 This is the way 37

Vitiello 2014b, 657–8. See also Teillet 1984, 284; Hen 2008, 49. Romano 1979, 333. Heather 1993, 352.

38

39

Circulation

203

forward, for scholarship on historiography and panegyric has emphasized how such texts can never be reduced to imperial propaganda even if they were commissioned by the court.40 In addition, although the Chronicle was produced for a precise occasion, the consulship of Eutharic, there is no proof that this is true of the History of the Goths. Cassiodorus may have incorporated elements originating at court into a work published at any given moment between 515 and 526. A brief consideration of the intended audience of the History of the Goths may add to this conclusion. We have very limited evidence in this regard. T1 has its implied reader, Athalaric, whereas T3 hints at Cassiodorus’ circle as an audience. Scholars have sometimes felt that they should choose between a Gothic or a Roman audience,41 but they are not mutually exclusive. If one takes the court to be the primary audience, one would expect the work to have been read by both Goths and Romans. But one can also very easily imagine that Cassiodorus first read the work to his own circle, before offering it ‘officially’ to the king. The evidence for the circulation of the work points in that direction. Except for Jordanes, Cassiodorus himself is the only source of information about the work – and Jordanes accessed the work through Cassiodorus himself. Indeed, the most likely interpretation of Jordanes’ preface (T3) is that Cassiodorus had read the History of the Goths to a circle of friends in Constantinople.42 He thus did not think the work to be so propagandistic that it would not have much worth beyond its original context, a view clearly shared by Castalius, who asked Jordanes to summarize it. Thus, a purely political interpretation that takes the work to be an ad hoc contribution to the legitimation of the Amal dynasty risks considerably reducing the range of its possible meanings.

Circulation The History of the Goths is lost. We know that Cassiodorus brought it to Constantinople, where Jordanes consulted it. Jordanes’ Getica was brought back to the West, where it had a rich reception in Western medieval historiography.43 There are, by contrast, no traces of the use or knowledge 40

E.g. Rees 2002; Van Nuffelen 2013. Wilkinson 2018 argues that Cassiodorus did write propaganda for Theoderic by depicting him as a Moses-like figure. Again, such a depiction does not necessarily imply that Cassiodorus promulgated exactly what Theoderic wanted. 41 Barnish 1984, 342–3; Weissensteiner 1994a, 316; Christensen 2002, 72. 42 Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 283–5. 43 Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b.

204 Cassiodorus of Cassiodorus’ history after Jordanes. Although the opposite has been alleged, none of these theories can provide proof, nor are they plausible enough to be maintained as a hypothesis. The Historia Romana of Paul the Deacon, the geography of Aethicus Ister, and the History of the Goths of Isidore of Seville have all been said to rely on Cassiodorus,44 but all the material is, in fact, mediated through Jordanes, as was shown by J. Weissensteiner.45 Similarly, the suggestion by M. Gusso, that Marcellinus Comes knew the History of the Goths, has been demonstrated to be wrong by R. Jakobi.46 M. Vitiello has recently revived the hypothesis that the Anonymus Valesianus II, an account of the reign of Theoderic the Great that was based on earlier, unknown sources, had used the History of the Goths.47 The Anonymus is a series of excerpts, possibly compiled in the eighth or ninth century from a sixth-century original, which clearly relied on chronographic sources related to the tradition called the consularia Italica and the Ravenna Annals. How closely one wishes to date the original text to the reign of Theoderic is a matter of discussion.48 M. Vitiello’s hypothesis that the Anonymus Valesianus used Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths relies on perceived similarities between the two.49 First, he notes that the praise of Theoderic in Anonymus Valesianus II, 60, 65–73 bears a resemblance to certain formulations of praise that appear in Cassiodorus’ Variae (8.3.2–5 [526/7], 9.10.2 [533/7]).50 Yet the parallels are slight: they relate to meaning, and are not verbal.51 They are best explained 44

Bauch 1873, 34–49; Rühl 1871, 6–10 and 1880, 566; Mommsen 1894a, 308–22; Zecchini 1993, 240. Rühl 1880 argues that a series of excerpts from the Epitome of Justin, with material added from Orosius, derives from Cassiodorus, but nobody has accepted his argument. Indeed, the text is too close to the text of Justin to be able to derive from the rhetorically elaborate text that Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths was. It is probably a Carolingian product. 45 Weissensteiner 1994b. 46 Gusso 1995, 605–20; Jakobi 2011. 47 Schirren 1858, 81; Pallmann, 1864, 250–8; Oechsli 1873, 85–98; Cipolla 1893, 34; Cessi 1913, lxxxvii– cxix; Vitiello 2006a, 2006b, and 2014b. König 1997, 13 entertains the possibility. See the critique of Waitz 1865, 97–102; Holder-Egger 1876, 338 n. 2; Adams 1976, 144 n. 34; Moorhead 1992, 62 n. 121. 48 König 1997; Croke 2003, 352–61; Vitiello 2006b; Goltz 2008, 476–526. See above Maximian of Ravenna (FHistLA 15). 49 Vitiello 2006b and 2014b. 50 Vitiello 2006a, 120. 51 This is an example given by Vitiello (emphases are his). Cassiodorus, Variae 8.3.2–5: Nostrae siquidem opinionis interest, ut, quos ille benignissime tuitus est, nos etiam statuta copia et beneficiorum ubertate pascamus. Minus cogitant qui obscuris principibus et versatis in mediocri actione succedunt: nos talis praecessit, ut exquisitis virtutibus eius sequi vestigia debeamus. Quapropter, quod auspice deo dictum sit, gloriosi domni aui nostri ita vobis nuntiamus ordinatione dispositum, ut Gothorum Romanorumque in regnum nostrum suavissimus consensus accederet, et, ne adversis rebus aliqua possit remanere suspicio, vota sua sacramentorum interpositione firmarunt: se dominatum nostrum tanto gaudio subire, tamquam si illis domnus avus noster fatali sorte non videretur esse subtractus, ne solis linguis, sed etiam imis pectoribus probarentur esse devoti. Quod si vos, ut opinamur, libenti

Circulation

205

as relying on a shared origin in the official discourse that ancient monarchies produced. Indeed, it should be noted that the parallels are with letters that postdate Theoderic’s death, which shows that this kind of praise was not specific to Theoderic. Vitiello uses the parallels he sees with Variae 8.2–3 as another argument for dating the History of the Goths to around 526/7, but such superficial parallels cannot support this argument. As the parallels are panegyrical tropes, they could have been uttered at any given moment. Moreover, even if there were verbal parallels, there is no reason to suppose that a similar turn of phrase in two works by the same author implies that they were written at the same time. Second, Vitiello lists a number of parallels between Jordanes, Getica 295–303 and Anonymus Valesianus II, 60, 65–73:52 the general similarity, with both accounts starting with the conquest of Italy and the murder of Odoacer; the marriage to Audofleda, the sister of Clovis (Getica 296; Anonymus Valesianus II, 63); the marriages of Theoderic’s daughters Ostrogotho and Thiudigoto (Getica 297–8; Anonymus Valesianus II, 63); the marriage of his sister Amalafrida and niece Amalaberga (Getica 299; Anonymus Valesianus II, 70, 72); similar praise for Theoderic’s dominance over neighbouring peoples (Getica 303; Anonymus Valesianus II, 72); and the absence of information about events after Ibba’s campaign against the Franks in 508, a feature also found in Cassiodorus’ Chronicle.53 Similarity in content is never a strong argument to start with, for information can travel in many ways. Yet in this case Vitiello fails to take into account the clear differences between the two accounts. The Anonymus Valesianus wrongly states that Amalaberga was Theoderic’s sister, whereas Jordanes animo similia feceritis, harum portitores sub obtestatione divina vobis fecimus polliceri iustitiam nos et aequabilem clementiam, quae populos nutrit, iuvante domino custodire et Gothis Romanisque apud nos ius esse commune nec aliud inter vos esse divisum, nisi quod illi labores bellicos pro communi utilitate subeunt, vos autem civitatis Romanae habitatio quieta multiplicat. Ecce ad condicionem clementissimam sacramenti inclinando nostrum eveximus principatum, ut nihil dubium, nihil formidolosum populi habere possint quos beatus noster auctor enutrivit. Ecce Traiani vestri clarum saeculis reparamus exemplum: iurat vobis per quem iuratis, nec potest ab illo quisquam falli, quo invocato non licet inpune mentiri. Anonymus Valesianus II, 60: Sic gubernavit duas gentes in uno, Romanorum et Gothorum, dum ipse quidem Arrianae sectae esset, tamen nihil contra religionem catholicam temptans; exhibens ludos circensium et amphitheatrum, ut etiam a Romanis Traianus vel Valentinianus, quorum tempora sectatus est, appellaretur, et a Gothis secundum edictum suum, quo ius constituit, rex fortissimus in omnibus iudicaretur. Militiam Romanis sicut sub principes esse praecepit. Dona et annonas largitus quamquam aerarium publicum ex toto faeneum invenisset, suo labore recuperavit et opulentum fecit. We do not get beyond a general assertion of the felicity of the reign of the king, who is compared to Trajan, the prime example of a good emperor in Late Antiquity. 52 Vitiello 2014b. 53 Vitiello 2014b, 657.

206 Cassiodorus has the correct kinship. Equally, the Anonymus calls Ostrogotha Areagni and mixes up the marriages of the two women: he has Areagni marry Alaric II, the Visigothic king, whereas the latter’s bride was in fact Thiudigotha. In addition, the Anonymus Valesianus contains material that is strongly negative towards Theoderic, for example, the fact that he was so uneducated that he could not write (Anonymus Valesianus II, 79). This idea is also present in another context where Vitiello implies use of Cassiodorus (61). This suggests a critical tendency in the material the author was using. Vitiello circumvents the problem by postulating a plurality of sources for the author.54 This may be possible, but the Anonymus Valesianus is traditionally seen as a unitary work that relied on a series of successive sources, but did not mix them.55 Even if the negative judgement of Theoderic can be explained away, the errors are harder to deal with: if Jordanes could extract the correct information from Cassiodorus, it is surprising that the Anonymus Valesianus would have misunderstood him. The more logical solution is that he relied on a source in which this information was already muddled. In sum, the argument for a reliance on Cassiodorus is built on parallels that are best explained by a reliance on a shared official representation and discourse, not on a single, shared source. Indeed, chronicles relied on information that was publicly circulated, and it is therefore unsurprising that texts from the same period should contain similarities. This is an interesting conclusion in its own right: the History of the Goths is, yet again, aligned with the official discourse. At any rate, the alleged parallels are never precise enough to warrant speaking of a common source, let alone identifying it. If we look at what we do know for sure, we see a clear pattern of circulation. All our witnesses to the history come from either Cassiodorus himself or from Jordanes, who was, in some way, in contact with Cassiodorus.56 From T1 we gather that the work had been presented at court; T2 and T4 imply that Cassiodorus thought of it as a work worth mentioning to his circle of friends and acquaintances. Yet, the current disposition of our evidence indicates that the work was never known to anyone who was not directly connected to Cassiodorus, which hints at its limited circulation at court and in the household of Cassiodorus himself. Moreover, for anyone interested in the history of the Goths there were shorter yet 54

Vitiello 2014b, 661. Goltz 2008, 477; cf. Tönnies 1989, 20–5. Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 283–90.

55

56



Cassiodorus’  History of the Goths in the Getica

207

fuller accounts available: Jordanes includes the full story until the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom, whilst Isidore of Seville provided a narrative from a Visigothic perspective. To later generations, these may have seemed the better accounts. Limited circulation and the turn of events thus condemned Cassiodorus’ history to oblivion.

Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths in the Getica Scholars who argue that Jordanes merely copied Cassiodorus have regularly alleged linguistic proof of that fact,57 whilst the recent turn towards reading the Getica as a work in its own right has tended to imply a lack of interest in attempts to identify where Jordanes relies on which precise source. There is a middle course to be steered between these two extremes, whereby we try to define criteria that can guide us. Even then, the results will remain tentative: we will never have the exact phrasing of the History of the Goths, and Jordanes may have altered the meaning of Cassiodorus’ narrative by compressing it. At best, we can identify some of the topics Cassiodorus included. This obviously relies on extensive analysis of Jordanes’ Getica, which cannot be attempted here. We will, therefore, summarize the tentative conclusions we propose in our translation of Jordanes. Details of the argument are to be found there.58 We use three criteria. First, linguistic parallels in expressions between the Getica and the extant works of Cassiodorus. In our translation we have signalled significant parallels, namely expressions that only occur in Jordanes and Cassiodorus or expressions that Cassiodorus used particularly often and that also occur in Jordanes. The criterion is not watertight, for we obviously do not have access to the complete corpus of sixth-­ century literature: what the state of our evidence makes significant would not necessarily be important if the whole of sixth-century Latin literature had been preserved. With this caveat, a telling pattern occurs in our list of parallels: Cassiodorean turns of phrase occur almost continuously from Getica 182 onwards, when Attila is introduced, but the geographical introduction and some earlier sections also contain some parallels. There is a

57

Sybel 1838; Schirren 1858, 9–43; Cipolla 1892; Gutschmidt 1894, 295; Hachmann 1970, 474–98; Barnish 1992b, 40 alleges ‘a large number of typical cassiodorian words and phrases’, but not all of his examples are apposite; Weissensteiner 1994a, 314 with reference to forthcoming, and as far as we can tell, never published research; Vitiello 2006a, 83, 220–1 uses very vague parallels to argue for dependence. For a critique, see Coumert 2007, 126–8. 58 Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b.

208 Cassiodorus clustering of parallels in the direct speech that Jordanes includes, possibly implying that these were taken verbatim from Cassiodorus.59 Second, use of sources. Jordanes quotes many sources, whilst others, like Ammianus and the chronicle of Prosper Tiro, are not cited but clearly used. The circulation of such works (East or West), attested knowledge of them in other works by Cassiodorus, and citation patterns in Jordanes help to establish a tentative list of sources that were likely60 and possibly61 used by Cassiodorus in the History of the Goths and thence, copied by Jordanes. Later material, after Getica 260, also has points of contact with the so-called Consularia Italica-tradition, a lost but influential chronicle tradition that can be traced in many Italian sources.62 Other sources, by contrast, are likely to have been directly used by Jordanes,63 whilst still others might possibly have been accessed directly by him.64 Interestingly, we have not found any linguistic parallels in passages that we ascribe to sources directly used by Jordanes. This means that we can be fairly confident that Priscus65 and Marcellinus Comes66 were used directly by Jordanes. A third criterion are Jordanes’ explicit narrative indications regarding insertions and digressions. Again, one should not assume that every digression in the Getica is of Jordanes’ own invention, but when supported by one or two of the other criteria, it becomes probable that the digression is an insertion by Jordanes himself. In the clearest cases, an insertion is based on a source that was directly used by Jordanes.67 An intriguing possibility 59

Letter of Valentian: Getica 186–7; speech of Attila: Getica 203–6; conversation of Zeno and Theoderic: Getica 290–1. 60 Pomponius Mela: Getica 7, 10–18, 30–2, 44–6, 51–4, 75, 230; Tacitus: 5, 10, 12–14, 26–36; Ptolemy: 34, 51, 69, 74; Solinus: 19, 46, 53–5, 75; Justin: 44–57, 61–4; Ammianus: 116–38; Julius Honorius: 6–7; Prosper Tiro: 164, 166–7, 174, 176–8, 182, 185, 187, 216, 222, 225, 259–60; Symmachus the Younger: 83–8; Dionysius the Periegete: 30, 48. 61 Strabo: Getica 10, 12, 14, 32, 39, 45–6, 51, 53, 56, 67–8, 74, 113; Dexippus: 89–109; Eunapius/Zosimus: 140–4. 62 CHAP s.v. This is the likely explanation for the vague parallels with the Anonymus Valesianus II listed by Vitiello 2014b (see above p. 205): The Anonymus Valesianus also relied on that tradition. 63 Eutropius: Getica 76–7; Priscus: 123–4, 126, 178–9, 183–4, 222–5, 254–5; Marcellinus Comes: 154, 159, 165–6, 235–45; Common source of the Continuation of Marcellinus Comes and Jordanes: 172, 307, 310, 313; Rufinus of Aquileia: 1. 64 Cassius Dio: Getica 11, 25, 58–60, 65–6, 71–2, 89, 148–50, 158; Jerome: 61, 104–5, 107–8, 111, 138, 313; Ablabius: 28, 82, 117. 65 Pace Zecchini 1983, 98, arguing that Cassiodorus used Priscus. 66 One of the consequences of Ensslin’s thesis about Symmachus the Younger (see above FHistLA 14, pp. 148–53). 67 Getica 121–9, a digression relying in material from Priscus; Getica 241–3, clarifying a remark on disorder in the West, probably found in Cassiodorus, with material from Marcellinus Comes; Getica 254–5, opening and closing with a reference to Priscus and giving a version of Attila’s death different from the one known to Cassiodorus; Getica 178–9, adding a digression on Attila’s way of habitation, drawn from Priscus; Getica 183, adding the finding of the sword of Mars from Priscus; Getica 167– 72, a digression on the Vandals, tentatively assigned to the Common source of the Continuation



Cassiodorus’  History of the Goths in the Getica

209

is that the passage on the Battle of the River Nedao in the 450s, when the sons of Attila were defeated by the Gepids, is such an insertion: a possibility contrary to the general assumption that it derives from Cassiodorus.68 What does this teach us about Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths? First, Jordanes generally follows the narrative of Cassiodorus: the geography and the history from Hermanaric (end of the fourth century) onwards can in all likelihood be assigned to Cassiodorus, barring the additions from Priscus and other sources.69 Yet the fundamental frame of the narrative goes back to Cassiodorus. The history of Attila and succeeding events seems to have been summarized by Jordanes with few interventions: the insertions from Priscus and other sources can be easily identified, and there is a high density of Cassiodorean expressions in these chapters. This does not mean that we have in each of these cases the very words of Cassiodorus or his exact representation of events: when following Cassiodorus’ narrative, Jordanes may have adapted the narrative to suit his own literary and political agenda. Thus we cannot draw conclusions about Cassiodorus’ representation of events from what we read in Jordanes, as older scholarship used to do. But we can confidently assume that Cassiodorus traced broadly the same history as we find in the Getica: a migration from Scandza70 towards the empire, the split into Visi- and Ostrogoths and a culmination in the reign of Theoderic the Great. An interest in the origin and customs of the Goths, which is the theme of the first quarter of the Getica, conforms to what we know from extant testimonies of Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths. Second, in line with the habits of ancient historiography, Cassiodorus used speeches in his history. How prominent these were is hard to tell. Third, the History of the Goths relied heavily on modification of extant sources and rhetorical elaboration of chronicle entries. An example of the former is the use of Ammianus to construct a positive narrative about King Hermanaric in the third quarter of the fourth century. The latter is illustrated by the fact that Prosper Tiro is the key source for the history of the first half of the fifth century71 and that in the narrative as we have of Marcellinus Comes and Jordanes; and Getica 239–43, a digression based on Marcellinus Comes. Possible but less certain examples: Getica 93, based on Jerome; Getica 148–51, a digression based on Cassius Dio and Favius; and Getica 168–72, a digression on Geiseric. 68 Getica 254–67: the beginning derives from Priscus and the end is by Jordanes, who concludes with an authorial statement about himself. 69 And hence also the location of the Goths on Scandza, pace Goffart 2006, 233. 70 Goffart 2006, 233 argues that the migration from Scandza is an invention of Jordanes in Constantinople, but that is unlikely in the light of citation patterns and the Cassiodorean phrases. 71 Getica 164, 166–7, 174, 176–8, 182, 185, 187, 216, 222, 225, 259–60.

210 Cassiodorus it Jordanes often adds few facts to the brief chronicle entries. The same holds true in the section on the Visigothic kingdom, where chronicles also seem to be the likely sources.72 The almost exclusive use of Greco-Roman sources confirms T1, where it is said that Cassiodorus brought Gothic history to light through reading. Cassiodorus created a positive and extensive account of the distant and recent past of the Goths based on very limited sources. In line with the methodological principles of this volume, we refrain from pushing these conclusions further. Not only must they remain hypothetical, but in the absence of the History of the Goths itself or more extensive fragments, we cannot know the degree to which Jordanes intervened in the text. As F1 shows, Jordanes may well have considerably shortened one famous episode, the sack of Rome of 410.

Historia Gothorum T1: Cassiodorus, Variae 9.25.4–6 (ed. Å. J. Fridh 1973, 379.27–38; tr. Barnish 1992a, 128, modified) 4 Tetendit se etiam in antiquam prosapiem nostram, lectione discens quod vix maiorum notitia cana retinebat. Iste reges Gothorum longa oblivione celatos latibulo vetustatis eduxit. Iste Amalos cum generis sui claritate ­restituit, evidenter ostendens in septimam decimam progeniem stirpem nos habere regalem. 5 Originem Gothicam historiam fecit esse Romanam, colligens quasi in unam coronam germen floridum quod per librorum campos passim fuerat ante dispersum. 6 Perpendite, quantum vos in no­stra laude dilexerit, qui vestri principis nationem docuit ab antiquitate mirabilem, ut, sicut fuistis a maioribus vestris semper nobiles aestimati, ita vobis antiqua regum progenies inperaret.

4 He extended his labours even to the ancient cradle of our house, learning from his reading what the hoary recollections of our elders scarcely preserved.73 He led out the kings of the Goths, long hidden in oblivion in the hiding-place of antiquity. He restored the Amals, along with the splendour 72

Getica 219–46. The opposition lectio/notitia is a topos. For variants, see Pliny the Younger, Panegyric 54.2; Panegyrici Latini 2(12).33.1–2.

73



Historia Gothorum

211

of their origin, clearly proving me to be of royal stock to the seventeenth generation. 5 From a Gothic lineage he made a Roman history, gathering, as it were, into one garland, flower-buds that had previously been scattered through the fields of literature.74 6 Think how much he loved you in praising us, when he showed the nation of your prince to have been a wonder since ancient days.75 In consequence, just as you have always been thought noble because of your ancestors, so you shall be ruled by an ancient line of kings. Commentary This letter by the Gothic king Athalaric, dated to 1 September 533, is addressed to the Roman senate and appoints Cassiodorus as praetorian prefect. In 527 Cassiodorus had been dismissed when a ‘Gothic’ faction forced Amalasuintha to abandon her reliance on the Roman senatorial elite which, according to Procopius, led to the end of Athalaric’s Roman education.76 Exploiting war in Gaul, the queen managed to have the leaders of this faction killed in 533, and Cassiodorus returned to power as praetorian prefect.77 In this politically difficult context, Athalaric clearly felt a need to legitimize himself, and one element on which he relied was his pedigree, as is evident in this letter.78 It may be better to state that Cassiodorus has him rely on the pedigree, for this letter is written by Cassiodorus in the name of Athalaric. This context is important to remember, for it colours what (Cassiodorus claims that) Athalaric says about the history. In particular, we should avoid projecting Athalaric’s use of the History of the Goths back onto the original context of its publication, which may, as we have seen, have been as early as 515.79 74

The metaphor of picking flowers is a common one (e.g. Lucretius, On the nature of things 4.3–4; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical history 1.1.4; Jerome, On illustrious men pr.; Victor of Vita, History of the Vandal persecution pr. 1; Cassiodorus, Variae 8.19.1, Tripartite history pr.). The metaphor also returns at the end of the Getica, allowing for the suggestion that Jordanes drew it from the History of the Goths (O’Donnell 1982, 52–3; Heather 1989, 127). Yet this presupposes that the present passage repeats a statement made by Cassiodorus in that work, which is a mere assumption. Indeed, the metaphor is too common to allow any conclusions at all (Goffart 1988, 38 n. 80). 75 On this sentence, see T3. 76 Procopius, Wars 1.2.16–18. 77 Procopius, Wars 1.2.24–9: cf. Wolfram 2009, 333–7; Vitiello 2014a, 14–58. 78 See also Cassiodorus, Variae 11.1.19. The interpretation in Hen 2008, 49 is somewhat vitiated by the fact that he does not indicate that Athalaric is speaking. 79 An example is Scharf 1991, 619, who argues that Theodahad was of a generation closer to Theoderic than was Athalaric, Theoderic being his uncle. Therefore, Cassiodorus supported Athalaric’s claim to the throne by turning his father Eutharic into an Amal.

212 Cassiodorus This testimonium is highly informative, even if much of what it says has been misinterpreted. First, T1 is the earliest attestation of the history as being available in full. Given the consistent usage of the perfect tense, this is the only possible interpretation of Athalaric’s words, even if it has been claimed that the letter only suggests access to an unfinished version.80 The date 1 September 533 is therefore a secure terminus ante quem. Second, T1 leaves little doubt that the history was largely based on literary sources, which are said to be more informative than the recollections of the Goths themselves. Athalaric explicitly contrasts lectio with notitia, with a strong preference for the former.81 According to his reading, Cassiodorus brought hitherto unknown Gothic kings to new prominence. This casts strong doubts on the probability of a pervasive presence of oral traditions in Cassiodorus (and hence Jordanes). Such a presence was required by the ethnogenesis-model that originated with R. Wenskus and which presupposed an oral Traditionskern that was preserved by the Gothic elite.82 This does not mean that Cassiodorus had no access to songs and other oral material,83 and Jordanes also occasionally refers to such material.84 Yet in Jordanes too it only supplements and never shapes the narrative, which is, for the greatest part, constructed out of classical, written sources.85 In sum, both this witness and the practice of Jordanes in the Getica demonstrate that oral tradition was not the backbone of the narrative and played a minor role in the making of the History of the Goths. Third, the work supported the Amal family, that is, the family of Theoderic the Great, and was composed to prove its long-standing claim 80

Pace Barnish 1984, 341. Vitiello 2014b, 656 says that it ‘may’ indicate that the history was completed. Cf. Ghosh 2016, 56–7. Christensen 2002, 73 encounters a puzzle here: if the Amals held royal power for so long, why did the Goths themselves not remember it? And if there was an oral tradition, how can Cassiodorus claim that he has rescued the Amals from oblivion? The misconception here seems to stem from the idea that the oral tradition refers to the whole of Gothic history (an idea derived from the ethnogenesis school). But, as the Getica shows, oral tradition provides just a few bits and pieces here and there, without ever amounting to a coherent narrative itself (see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b). 82 For Cassiodorus the idea has been most strongly defended by H. Wolfram: Wolfram 1994, 30 and 2009, 41–7. For context, see Pohl 2002, 228–9; Halsall 2007, 10–19; Maas 2012, 74–7; ter Haar Romeny 2012; Reimitz 2013; Ghosh 2016, 17–20. For critique, see Amory 1997, 326–7; Gillett 2002. 83 See Cassiodorus, Variae 8.9.8. Cf. Liebeschuetz 2011, 191. 84 Getica 28, 43, 72, 146, 214. Cf. Heather 1989, 105 and 1991, 5–6, 61–3; Ghosh 2016, 46–59; Christensen 2002, 270–1; Coumert 2007, 72. Goffart 2006, 56–72 is more sceptical regarding the possibility of any oral information. 85 For example, the story of Hermanaric (Getica 116–18), constructed on the basis of Ammianus Marcellinus (31.1–2): Heather 1989. The same holds true for the sections on the third-century kings Cniva and Ostrogotha (Getica 90–103), which derive from Dexippus: see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. 81



Historia Gothorum

213

to royal status. Such a claim was necessary, as the Amals only rose to dominate the Goths under Theoderic himself and did so in competition with other Gothic leaders in Thrace, in particular Theoderic Strabo.86 Athalaric uses the language of discovery, and there can be little doubt that the Amal genealogy was constructed by Cassiodorus: it is clear from Jordanes that Theoderic’s family could only trace itself back to the first half of the fifth century.87 This observation is in line with our suggestion above that the work must have been composed under Theoderic himself. Fourth, concerning the genealogy, Athalaric clearly speaks of seventeen ‘generations’ and not of seventeen royal predecessors: his family can be traced back seventeen generations.88 The mention that the Amals are ‘of royal stock’ has been taken to mean that all seventeen generations were kings, but this is incorrect.89 Getica 79–80 does indeed count seventeen generations from Gapt to Athalaric, but this is not a continuous series of kings. It is implied that some generations did not rule, whereas others consist of siblings who ruled jointly.90 Moreover, Jordanes mentions several kings of the Ostrogoths who are not in the Amal genealogy.91 Thus, the king list suggested by his narrative is not identical to the genealogy of the Amals.92 One can argue that Jordanes added some of these from sources other than Cassiodorus, but the simpler solution is to understand Athalaric’s words in the letter as saying what they actually do: he is of royal blood in the seventeenth generation, which means that his family began seventeen generations ago and that it was of royal blood, which need not imply that it always effectively ruled. This observation is important, for it was argued by H. Wolfram that Cassiodorus deliberately chose the number seventeen to mimic the number of Roman kings from Aeneas to Romulus and thus to suggest a parallel 86

Heather 1995b, 150–1. The lack of information for the early fifth century is a sign of this, symbolized by the forty-year interregnum between Thorismud and Valamer (Getica 251). Tönnies 1989, 45–51; Heather 1989; Christensen 2002, 73. 88 O’Donnell 1979, 44–7 points out that this phrase does not imply that Athalaric was king when the History of the Goths was written. Scharf 1991, 617 interprets it in the opposite way. 89 Scholars regularly confuse the Amal genealogy and the king list of the Ostrogoths: Heather 1989, 119; Scharf 1991, 627; Christensen 2002, 72–3, 127–30. On the question of whether Cassiodorus could rely on Gothic material for the genealogy, see Pohl 2016. 90 E.g. Theoderic’s father Thiudimir ruled together with his two brothers (Getica 253). 91 Getica 67 (Buruista), 101 (Cniva), 112 (Ariaricus and Aoricus), 113 (Geberich), 142 (Athanaric). 92 The king list proceeds as follows: Ostrogotha, Cniva, Ariaricus and Aoricus, Geberich, Hermanaric, Vinitharius, Hunimund, Thorismund, Valamir, Theoderic. Before Ostrogotha, the genealogy has five names, generating fifteen kings in total. There may have been names between Cniva and Ariaricus, for Jordanes indicates no direct succession at this point. Indeed, Cassiodorus, Variae 11.1.19 lists an Athala as a king, after Cniva. 87

214 Cassiodorus between Romulus and Athalaric.93 This is a problematic assumption. To start with, it unwarrantedly identifies generations with kings and these are not identical: Jordanes’ genealogy counts seventeen generations but his king list contains fewer names.94 The identification of one with the other generates problems. Theoderic is number fifteen in the genealogy, which means that if Athalaric is to be number seventeen one has to count Amalasuintha, Athalaric’s mother and the daughter of Theoderic, as number sixteen in the king list. Yet, though Amalasuintha represents a generation, she was not a ruler: Athalaric succeeded his grandfather directly, as his father Eutharic died before he could assume the throne. Moreover, the number seventeen for the number of Roman kings between Aeneas and Romulus is only attested in one manuscript of Jerome, held in the Bodleian, whereas the standard transmission has sixteen, which is also the number of kings in Cassiodorus’ Chronicle. In sum, confusing generation and royal succession, the numbers of Wolfram’s proposal simply do not add up. His idea implies that the number seventeen was used in the History of the Goths95 and that this indicates that the work focused on Athalaric, either when he was designated as successor under Theoderic or after the latter’s death. We have seen above that it is unlikely that the history was dedicated to Athalaric, nor is there any proof that it focused on him as designated successor to Theoderic. Indeed, Cassiodorus may have included only fifteen generations until Theoderic, and in that case, Athalaric (or Cassiodorus on his behalf ) simply counted himself as the seventeenth generation. Fifth, the other explanation for the number of generations is mathematical. Jordanes inserts his genealogy of the Amals at the point where he mentions Domitian’s war with the Dacians (represented as Goths), known to have taken place in AD 86–7 (Getica 76–8), and seems to imply that the Amals originated at this time. In Antiquity it was usual to count three generations per century, but that yields 533 years for sixteen generations, which does not fit the time span from 86 until the 510s–520s, when Cassiodorus was (presumably) writing. N. Wagner has proposed an ingenious solution. He assumes that the end point of Cassiodorus’ history was 526, that is 440 years since 86. According to Censorinus a Roman saeculum lasted 110 years:96 440 years are exactly 4 saecula, and thus with the reign of Athalaric 93

Wolfram 1967, 99–104. He is followed by Wagner 1979, 28; Heather 1989, 109; Scharf 1991, 616. See p. 213 n. 92. 95 See also O’Donnell 1979, 44: ‘it [the History] chronicled seventeen generations of the Amal dynasty’; Scharf 1991, 616. 96 Censorinus, The birthday book 17. 94



Historia Gothorum

215

a new saeculum starts. Cassiodorus, so Wagner supposes, counted four generations per saeculum, generating sixteen generations between 86 and 526.97 This is neat, but glosses over the special pleading it presupposes. First of all, the argument takes it for granted that the work was published in 526 at the earliest and that it was intended for Athalaric. This conflicts with T4, nor, as we have just seen, is it supported by T1. Second, it was common to count three generations per century, and to count four per saeculum is peculiar. Third, in order to make the numbers fit we have to start counting in AD 86, but it is unlikely that Cassiodorus knew this precise date: Getica 76–7, on the wars of Domitian, is based on Orosius, Histories 7.10.3–4, which does not offer a precise date. Cassiodorus may have relied on Jerome, whose Chronicle does date a Roman victory over the Daci to AD 86, but also mentions a Roman triumph in AD 89. Yet, as there is no trace of any use of Jerome in this passage of Jordanes, we are entitled to doubt whether Cassiodorus mentioned a precise date at all: something that would be absolutely crucial for the reader to spot the game Wagner suggests Cassiodorus is playing. Finally, Wagner’s reading of the evidence implies that Athalaric, who was born c. 515–17, belonged to the new saeculum, even though he was alive in the first decade in the old one. Thus, even though Wagner’s numbers do add up, there is too much special pleading involved for his interpretation to be accepted. In sum, then, neither Wolfram nor Wagner offers a convincing explanation. We simply have to accept that the number of fifteen generations from Gapt to Theoderic was the accidental product of Cassiodorus’ attempts to produce coherence out of a mass of dispersed information. As a consequence, this testimonium does not imply that Cassiodorus praised Athalaric as a king or that his history focused on him. He may have mentioned him as the grandson and possible successor of Theoderic, but what role he played in the history we cannot know. Sixth, the phrase originem Gothicam historiam fecit esse Romanam has had particular importance in scholarship about the History of the Goths. Indeed, it provides the basis for H. Wolfram’s theory that there was an origo Gothica, an originally Gothic account, a narrative that ethnogenesis theory would define as the Traditionskern, that is, the core account that gave an ethnic group its identity.98 A narrative of origins is seen as an 97

Wagner 1979, 30–2 and 1986, 434–5. Wolfram 2009 uses Cassiodorus, Jordanes, and Origo Gothica interchangeably to refer to the Getica. See also Weissensteiner 1994a, 316. Christensen 2002, 74, 82 suggests that origo Gothica must refer back to maiorum notitia cana (which it does not) and thus seems to accept the same interpretation. See now also Liebeschuetz 2011.

98

216 Cassiodorus essential part of the identity of barbarian groups and hence supposed to be a particular genre, designated as origo. Few scholars would still defend the idea that origo Gothica indicates an internal Gothic narrative of this kind, one which was adapted to Roman-style historiography by Cassiodorus. The term is still used by medievalists, however, to designate a certain type of history, like the Getica, which has origo in its title.99 Leaving aside whether it is useful to distinguish such a medieval genre,100 this cannot be a correct interpretation of the sentence. The usage of Cassiodorus elsewhere in his oeuvre points in the right direction. He uses a similar formula when praising Boethius for his translations of Greek philosophical works: ut Graecorum dogmata doctrinam feceris esse Romanam (‘so that you will have made Greek ideas to be Roman learning’).101 Boethius reworked Greek teachings into a Roman form, which implies at least translation into Latin and maybe further adaptations. Origo in Cassiodorus normally means ‘progenitor’ or ‘lineage’,102 which suggests that it here refers to the Amal family. This is all the more logical, as the previous sentence states that Athalaric represents the seventeenth generation of that royal family. Thus, the phrase originem Gothicam historiam fecit esse Romanam means that what was hitherto only a Gothic family pedigree has now become a Roman history. This interpretation restores the overall logic of T1. Indeed, it is entirely focused on Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths as a history of the family of Athalaric, as witnessed by the vocabulary used (prosapiem, Amalos, stirpem, progenies). Reading originem Gothicam historiam fecit esse Romanam as a general qualification of the work (‘Cassiodorus turned the stories of the Goths into a Roman history’)103 would make it an i­nterruption of the 99

Plassmann 2009, 16. For the status quaestionis, see Wolfram 2003a; Coumert 2007; Plassmann 2016, 47–51. Wolfram 1990 and 1994 argued for origo gentis being a real genre (with reference to Bickerman 1952), in response to the criticism in Goffart 1988. Further interventions in the debate include Anton 1994, 302–3; Wood 2015, 54. Wolfram 2003a now accepts that origo cannot be an ancient genre. Plassmann 2009 and 2016 cautiously defends its use as a genre label. 100 We reject it in Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020, XLIII. 101 Cassiodorus, Variae 1.45.3. 102 Cassiodorus, Variae 2.3.2, 3.6.1, 6.3.1, 8.2.3. In T3 and T4 origo also appears in relation to the History of the Goths, where it has the meaning of ‘origin (of a people)’. Scholars have tended to project that meaning onto this passage. 103 Goffart 1988, 36–7 takes the phrase to mean that Cassiodorus turned Gothic history into a series of biographies of leaders, in line with the biographical focus of imperial historiography. For Croke 2003, 363 it refers to the inclusion of classical elements in Gothic history and its insertion into Roman chronology (see also Hen 2008, 50). The error in both interpretations lies in taking origo to mean ‘history’ (which is, in fact, a remnant of Wolfram’s interpretation, to which they respond), whereas it means ‘lineage’. Similarly, Mortensen 1987, 177 glosses origo Gothica as ‘narratives of Gothic origins’. Amory 1997, 74 takes the phrase to imply Gothic superiority over the Romans,



Historia Gothorum

217

flow of the argument, which is entirely focused on the work as a historiographical elaboration or elucidation of the Amal genealogy.104 As a consequence, the statement cannot be read as giving the essence of the History of the Goths, for it highlights only a single feature, one significant for Athalaric. Indeed, though the Amals are an important presence in the Getica, this work does more than narrate the history of that family. One should not forget that it was only from the fifth century onwards that Ostrogothic kingship was consistently held by the Amals, and, as we have noted above,105 Cassiodorus mentioned many non-Amal kings. The emphasis on the Amals that is evident in the testimonium is to be ­understood in the political context of 533. Athalaric clearly sought to legitimize his renewed, independent rule after the countercoup of 533.106 The emphasis on the royal lineage to which he belongs is therefore in the first place an argument for legitimacy in the context of 533, and the History of the Goths is adduced as one piece of legitimizing evidence. One should not forget that the letter is addressed to the Roman senate and argues for the nobility of the Amals as a justification for Athalaric’s rule. Not only does Athalaric have a long genealogy (as do the Roman ­senators), but it is also royal. If this is a claim to rulership, the fact that Gothic history turns out to be intertwined with Roman history provided a further ­justification for his rule over the Romans. Thus, the Amal lineage and its ‘Romanization’ by Cassiodorus is especially emphasized because of precise political circumstances. Other testimonia (especially T4) state that the History of the Goths included more than just the Amal lineage, and we should therefore avoid taking T1 as our only guide to the interpretation of the work. T2: Cassiodorus, Variae pr.11 (Fridh 1973, 5.73–5; tr. Barnish 1992a, 3) ‘Dixisti etiam ad commendationem universitatis frequenter reginis ac ­regibus laudes: duodecim libris Gothorum historiam defloratis prosperitatibus condidisti.’

which is quite a stretch. Navarra 1999 argues that Cassiodorus made the Goths look like Romans. This is not what the sentence implies, and if one reads the Getica, there is little hint of any effacement of the difference between Goths and Romans, even if Jordanes praises the former. 104 Cf. Goffart 1988, 35–8 and 2006, 58; Arnold 2014, 171. 105 pp. 213–14. 106 Cf. Heather 1989, 108; Scharf 1991, 616.

218 Cassiodorus ‘Moreover, you have often spoken, to general applause, panegyrics107 to kings and queens; you have composed the history of the Goths in twelve books, anthologising their successes.’ Commentary This sentence derives from the imagined exhortation made by Cassiodorus’ friends urging him to publish his letters cataloguing his earlier literary successes, that is, his panegyrics, and his history.108 Earlier, these friends had suggested that the state letters written by Cassiodorus were indebted to both genres: those who received these letters were described ‘with true praise’ (vera laude) and painted ‘with the pigment of history’ (historico colore). That Cassiodorus had practised both genres before suggests that his letters, even when composed in haste, would be of the highest literary quality. Panegyric and history were often put in parallel in Late Antiquity, ­usually with the aim of proving the superiority of one or the other genre.109 It was a trope of later Latin historiography to suggest that the history of the ruling emperor should be written in a ‘higher style’, that is, panegyrically.110 The qualification of the History of the Goths as ‘anthologising their successes’ suggests a similar association: the history was panegyrical in nature, which would not be surprising given that it also covered the reign of Theoderic, the man who commissioned it.111 T2 agrees with T3 that the History of the Goths was comprised of twelve books: see further there. T3: Jordanes, Getica pr. 1–2 (Mommsen 1882, 53 l. 3–54 l. 5; cf. Giunta and Grillone 1991, 1 l. 1–2 l. 6; Grillone 2017, 3–5112) 107

Fragments of these are preserved: Mommsen 1894b, 457–84. The date of the Variae is uncertain: Bjornlie 2013, 306–28 argues for a late date, when Cassiodorus was already in Constantinople, whilst traditionally a date shortly before 540 is preferred: see the discussion in Bjornlie. 109 E.g. Symmachus, Oration 2.29. Examples can be multiplied: Panegyrici Latini 2(12).8.5, 17.1, 33.1–2, 44.4–45.1; Jerome, Epitaphium Paulae 21.5; Socrates, Ecclesiastical history 1.1.2, 3.22.11, 3.23.3–6, 6.pr.6–9; Julian, Letter 14 (Wright); Libanius, Oration 59.56. See Ross 2016; Van Hoof and Conterno forthcoming with further references. 110 Eutropius 10.18.3; Festus 30.1; Jerome, Chronicle pr. (p. 7.5–10 Helm); Historia Augusta, Four tyrants 15.10; Ammianus Marcellinus 31.16.9: cf. Sabbah 1978, 18, 33; Paschoud 2005; G. Kelly 2007a. 111 Christensen 2002, 77–9. 112 On the reasons to prefer Mommsen’s text over the later editions of Giunta and Grillone, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. Translation and commentary of T3 rely on our forthcoming translation. 108



Historia Gothorum

219

1 Volentem me parvo subvectum navigio oram tranquilli litoris stringere et minutos de priscorum, ut quidam ait, stagnis pisciculos legere, in altum, frater Castali, laxari vela compellis relictoque opusculo, quod intra manus habeo, id est, de adbreviatione chronicorum, suades, ut nostris verbis duodecem Senatoris volumina de origine actusque Getarum ab olim et usque nunc per generationes regesque descendentem in uno et hoc parvo libello choartem: 2 dura satis imperia et tamquam ab eo, qui pondus operis huius scire nollit, inposita. Nec illud aspicis, quod tenuis mihi est spiritus ad inplendam eius tam magnificam dicendi tubam: super omne autem pondus, quod nec facultas eorundem librorum nobis datur, quatenus eius sensui inserviamus, sed, ut non mentiar, ad triduanam lectionem dispensatoris eius beneficio libros ipsos antehac relegi. Quorum quamvis verba non recolo, sensus tamen et res actas credo me integre retinere.

1 While I had intended to keep close to the shore of a peaceful coast, carried by a little boat, and as someone has said,113 to fish for small fry in the ponds of the ancient authors, you, brother Castalius,114 urge me to hoist my sails for the high seas: you persuade me to put aside the work at hand, that is, on the abbreviation of chronicles,115 and in my own words to compress in one booklet (and a little one, at that!) the Senator’s twelve books on the origin and deeds of the Getae116 from the distant past to the present day, proceeding by generations and kings. 2 Quite a tall order, one imposed as if by someone who refuses to see the burden the task implies! Nor do you take into account the fact that I lack the breath to fill so magnificent an oratorical trumpet as his. But the greatest difficulty of all is that I am not given access to the books themselves in order that I may follow his thought; no – and this is no lie – I had three days to reread117 those

113

The preface imitates that of Rufinus to his translation of Origen’s Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans, a fact that the phrase ut quidam ait indicates to the reader (Simonetti 1961; Mommsen 1882, 53–4; Giunta and Grillone 1991, 1 compare both texts). The choice to imitate Rufinus is not random, as both authors engage in a similar activity, that of abbreviating (Goffart 1988, 59). 114 The identity of Castalius is unknown. He was, or had been, living close to Goths (cf. Getica pr.3). 115 The reference is to De summa temporum vel origine actibusque gentis Romanorum, that is, the Romana. 116 The Getae were a Thracian tribe first attested in Herodotus (Histories 4.93–7) and prominent in the history of the Black Sea until the Roman period. The identification of the Goths with the Getae is late antique classicizing usage: see Christensen 2002: 43–5. 117 Scholars have often translated relegi as ‘I read’: Croke 1987, 121; Goffart 1988, 60; Möller 2012, 35. The translation ‘reread’ (Momigliano 1960a, 192; Wagner 1967, 50; Christensen 2002, 121–2) is to

220 Cassiodorus books before now, thanks to his steward.118 Although I do not recollect their wording, I think I fully recall their sense and the events they contain. Commentary Jordanes wrote the Getica in 551 in Constantinople.119 His dedicatee, Castalius, must have had previous acquaintance with Cassiodorus, for he knows of the latter’s History of the Goths, and, as Jordanes’ testimony implies, the residence of Cassiodorus was apparently the only place in Constantinople where one could find this work. Jordanes states that he did not have direct contact with Cassiodorus and was only offered a brief reading period of the work. This passage has caused much discussion, but is best understood as Jordanes’ literary attempt to both indicate his own independence as an author (in pr.3 he underlines that he has added material of his own to his summary) and to situate himself in the orbit of Cassiodorus (Jordanes being of a lower social status).120 Jordanes informs us about a number of important features of Cassiodorus’ work. First, he offers something that looks like a title: De origine actusque (lege actibusque) Getarum. That this might be a title is, at first sight, supported by the fact that Jordanes’ own Getica also receives the title De origine actibusque Getarum in most manuscripts. Yet a closer look at the preface dispels this idea. Jordanes claims to have interrupted his work on (what we call) the Romana: ‘you persuade me to leave aside the work at hand, that is, On the abbreviation of chronicles …’. The Romana never receives the title De abbreviatione chronicorum in the manuscripts, but is instead called De summa temporum vel origine actibusque gentis Romanorum. De abbreviatione chronicorum seems, then, to be a description of the content of the Romana rather than a title (‘the booklet I am writing now as a summary of chronicles’). Similarly, what Jordanes says about the History of the Goths may well be a description of the content be preferred: the analysis of prefixes by Lorenzo Lorenzo 1976 shows that relegi does include the idea of repetition. The possibility that three days could suffice has been judged absurd (Barnish 1992a, 48). But if Jordanes had read the work before and went through it once more to collect relevant data, three days could have been enough. Moreover, the number may be topical to indicate a brief period: cf. Várady 1976, 450 with reference to Jerome, Letter 54.10. On the relationship between Cassiodorus and Jordanes, see Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017. 119 For the date, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. O’Donnell 1982, 239 and Croke 2005 argue for a date before March 551, but see Heather 1991, 47–9; Sarantis 2009, 36 and 2016, 315–17. Goffart 1988, 98 proposes the unlikely late date of 554. 120 We summarize here the argument of Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2017, 283–90. 118



Historia Gothorum

221

(‘the twelve books about the origins and deeds of the Getae’) rather than a title, especially since, as we have seen,121 Cassiodorus always calls the work historia Gothica or historia Gothorum. We would, therefore, be misguided to conclude that Cassiodorus’ work had the same title as that of Jordanes. Second, Jordanes gives an indication of the content of Cassiodorus’ work, which confirms what the other witnesses imply: a discussion of the origins122 of the Goths and their subsequent history. Further specification of the content is hampered by Jordanes’ muddled Latin. ab olim et usque nunc per generationes regesque descendentem must either refer to the volumina of Cassiodorus (reading descendentia) or relate to the subject of the verb choartem, that is, Jordanes (reading descendens). In the first case, it is Cassiodorus who traced the history of the Goths from the distant past until his own time, going through generations and kings, whilst in the second case it is Jordanes who does so. The reference to nunc (now) may suggest the second option (only Jordanes himself can narrate events until the present day), but the word nunc need not mean more than ‘our age’, which would still allow it to refer to Cassiodorus.123 This is, then, an issue that cannot be resolved. What is clear, however, is that Jordanes states that either he or Cassiodorus (and most likely both) narrates Gothic history according to two principles: a genealogical one (per generationes) and a political one (per reges). Hence they are aware of the fact that the Amal genealogy does not coincide with the succession of Gothic kings, a fact that is important in the light of our discussion of T1.124 Third, Jordanes clearly states that the work was in twelve books. M. Vitiello concludes from the absence of a reference to twelve books in T1 that the original History of the Goths was not in twelve books, and that this division was the result of a later reorganization.125 There is nothing to support such an idea and no reason to doubt that Cassiodorus originally planned the work in twelve books, as unequivocally stated by T2. Finally, Jordanes emphasizes that the style of Cassiodorus is much more elevated than his own. The reference in T1 to praise of Athalaric may suggest an influence from panegyric, something that is also implied in T2. 121

See above pp. 195–6. Note that origo must here mean ‘origins’ of a people, a different meaning from that in T1. 123 Cf. Barnish 1984, 348; Christensen 2002, 81. Tönnies 1989, 19 reads the sentence as describing the content of Cassiodorus’ work and nunc as referring to the year 551, which cannot work, as the history of Cassiodorus was composed under Theoderic. 124 See above p. 212. 125 Vitiello 2014b, 656. A similar argument is made in Barnish 1984. The idea serves to back up Momigliano’s mistaken idea that Cassiodorus updated his history c. 550 and that Jordanes simply summarized that work. But T2 already attests to a division into twelve books around 540. 122

222 Cassiodorus Cassiodorus’ style may therefore have been very elaborate. Even so, any reader of Jordanes knows that his style is very low indeed and his language strongly indebted to late Latin,126 which means that his register was lower than most Latin literature of the period. In other words, knowing that Cassiodorus’ style is higher than that of Jordanes does little to help us to determine the register of the History of the Goths, even if F1 does allow us to assume a high degree of rhetorical elaboration (see below). T4: Ordo generis Cassiodororum ll. 20–2 (Galonnier 1996, 306; cf. Usener 1877, 80; Mommsen 1894b, v–vi, Fridh 1973, vi; O’Donnell 1979, 261; Viscido 1992, 40) Scripsit praecipiente Theodorico127 rege historiam Gothicam originem eorum et loca mores128 in libris129 annuntians.130

At the command of the king Theoderic, he wrote the History of the Goths, setting out their origin, dwelling, and customs in books. Commentary The Ordo generis Cassiodororum is a series of excerpts from a work composed by Cassiodorus, most likely in Constantinople after 540. Addressed to the senator Cethegus, it contains brief intellectual biographies of Symmachus the Younger, Boethius, and Cassiodorus himself.131 Of Cassiodorus’ literary output, the Ordo generis mentions his panegyrical orations for Theoderic, his Variae, and his History of the Goths. The testimony confirms that Cassiodorus wrote a History of the Goths and specifies its content as their origo (that is, where they come from), the places they dwell (loca), and their habits (mores). If T1 and T3 emphasize the Amal genealogy and succession of kings as the key focus, and T2 highlights that it was a history of Gothic success, this testimony shifts

126

See Galdi 2013 on the language of Jordanes. Theodoricho Usener, O’Donnell; Theoderico Fridh. 128 et loca et mores Viscido, et loca moresque Usener. 129 XII libris Usener, Fridh, O’Donnell, Viscido. 130 enuntians Mommsen, Fridh. 131 See the commentary on T1 of Symmachus the Younger (FHistLA 14). 127



Historia Gothorum

223

the emphasis towards the ethnographic features of the account.132 If the Ordo generis was indeed composed in Constantinople, this shift may be revealing: Cassiodorus may not have wanted to highlight his strongly pro-Gothic stance and his loyalty to the Amals, but rather to present his ­history as a variant of Tacitus’ Germania. The text clearly states that Cassiodorus wrote the history at the behest of Theoderic. This implies, we suggest, a dedicatory preface to Theoderic, and not merely a recorded instance of Theoderic asking for a history to be written. In that case, the history (or at least part of it) was finished before 526. As we have noticed above,133 there is nothing in the other witnesses that contradicts this, and hence we should accept that this is the conclusion to which our evidence leads us.134 Finally, the text confirms that the history consisted of several books: the conjecture in XII libris seems likely, but is not necessary. F1: Cassiodorus, Variae 12.20.4 (Fridh 1973, 487.23–32; tr. Barnish 1992a, 174, modified) Superatum est exemplum quod in historia nostra magna intentione ­retulimus. nam cum rex Alaricus urbis Romae depraedatione satiatus apostoli Petri vasa suis deferentibus excepisset, mox ut rei causam habita interrogatione cognovit, sacris liminibus deportari diripientium manibus imperavit, ut cupiditas, quae depraedationis ambitu admiserat scelus, devotione largissima deleret excessum. sed quid mirum, si reverenda sanctorum diripere noluit, qui tanta se urbis vastatione ditavit?

The example I related so carefully in my history was surpassed. For, when King Alaric, glutted with the booty of Rome, received the vessels of the Apostle Peter from those who brought them in, he soon made an inquiry, realized the situation, and ordered them to be returned to the sacred thresholds by the hands of the plunderers. Thus, passionate desire, which had permitted a crime in its urge for booty, wiped out the transgression by an act of most generous devotion. But is it surprising

132

See above pp. 195–8. See above pp. 198–203. 134 Krautschik 1983, 79 suggests this sentence is a later interpolation (cf. Christensen 2002, 69), but it is hard to see why this should be the case or even how one can prove that it is. 133

224 Cassiodorus that he who had enriched himself by the plunder of such a city should be unwilling to pillage the hallowed property of the saints? Commentary The fragment derives from a letter written by Cassiodorus, in his position as praetorian prefect, to the treasurers Thomas and Peter, sent in AD 536. They are instructed to return the sacred vessels of the church of Rome which Agapitus, the bishop of Rome, had pawned to finance his embassy to Constantinople in early AD 536. The pope had spent all the money on alms, and he was rewarded for this by the Gothic king Theodahad with the cancellation of his debts. The sack of Rome by the soldiers of Alaric began on 24 August 410, after more than three years of rising tensions between Alaric and Honorius. According to Orosius it lasted three days.135 Most sources agree that the city was looted, but not destroyed, even if some buildings were burned down.136 Some authors allege widespread slaughter137 and destruction,138 but such accounts consciously sought to enhance the drama of the act.139 Indeed, the sack is generally depicted as a genteel affair.140 This is also the case in Orosius and Prosper, two authors whom Cassiodorus knew and probably used as sources.141 Indeed, the earliest attestation of the story of the vessels is in Orosius:142 a barbarian comes across a virgin who guards the vessels, and, instead of taking them, he reports it to Alaric, who, in turn, orders them to be carried to the church 135

Orosius, Histories 7.38.15. Jerome, Letter 127.13, 130.7; Augustine, The city of God 1.1; Orosius, Histories 7.39; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.4–5; Gerontius, Life of Melania 14.3; Marcellinus, Chronicle a. 410; Jordanes, Getica 156; Procopius, Wars 3.2.22–4. The archaeological record supports this representation of limited destruction: see the summary in Van Nuffelen 2015a. 137 Socrates, Ecclesiastical history 7.10; Hydatius, Chronicle 35 (43); Jerome, Letter 127.12. 138 Augustine, On the destruction of the city 2.2; Palladius, Lausiac history 54.7; Procopius, Wars 3.2.2. The anniversary of the event in 2010 has produced a flurry of scholarship: Meier and Patzold 2010; Ghilardi and Pilari 2010; Grossi and Ronzani 2010; Moorhead and Stuttard 2010; Di Berardino et al. 2012; Harich-Schwarzbauer and Pollmann 2013; Lipps et al. 2013; an overview in Van Nuffelen 2015a. 139 The famous aphorisms of Jerome on the occasion have the same function: Jerome, Letter 127.12 (capitur urbs, quae totum cepit orbem), Commentary on the prophet Ezechiel pr. (in una urbe totus orbis interiit). For a contextual reading of such statements, see McLynn 2013. 140 Zosimus, New history 5.41.4–7; Prosper Tiro, Chronicle 1240 (cf. Cassiodorus, Chronicle 1185); Orosius, Histories 7.39.15–17. See also Jordanes, Getica 156; Augustine, The city of God 1.7, 1.28; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical history 9.9. For analysis, see Mathisen 2013. 141 For Prosper, see above p. 209. 142 Orosius, Histories 7.39.3–14. 136



Historia Gothorum

225

of St Peter. Some verbal links suggest that Cassiodorus relied on Orosius.143 Cassiodorus’ version focuses more strongly on Alaric himself, who corrects the error of his soldiers. In the letter, Cassiodorus insists on the greed of the Goths in order to create a stronger contrast with the generosity of Agapitus. It is possible, but not certain, that this interpretation was also propounded in the history. Jordanes (Getica 156) does not mention this episode at great length, illustrating the degree of abbreviation he applied.144 He briefly notes that the churches were not harmed and that the Goths did not behave in a ‘barbarian’ way. Assuming that the version of the event Cassiodorus gives in this letter is already a summary of what he wrote in the History of the Goths, the fact that it is much longer than the account given by Jordanes is indicative of the degree of rhetorical elaboration that allowed Cassiodorus to fill twelve books145 – especially if we are correct in our belief that his account of the fifth century was basically dependent on Orosius and chronicles.146 143

Orosius, Histories 7.39.6: qui continuo reportari ad apostoli basilicam universa ut erant vasa imperavit; cf. F1: sacris liminibus deportari diripientium manibus imperavit. 144 Goffart 1988, 21 n. 8; Zecchini 1993, 194; Christensen 2002, 76–7. 145 Called his ‘magnificent oratorical trumpet’ by Jordanes in T3. 146 See above p. 209.

18

Roterius Reigns of various peoples

According to the seventh-century Life of Severus, Roterius was a Visigothic author, who composed a history under Reccared I (586–601). It covered at least most of the fifth century, and, in all likelihood, it ran until his own time. The work may have imparted an Old Testament tone to the history of the Visigothic kingdom, even if we only have the title by which to judge this (see below pp. 227–8). The Life of the holy abbot Severus of Agde contains a reference to the ‘famous historian’ Roterius, who is said to have written ‘books on the kingdoms of various peoples’. He is dated to the times of King Reccared of the Visigoths, probably Reccared I (586–601) and not Reccared II, who ruled very briefly in 621.1 Though historical inaccuracies abound in the single surviving fragment, the details given about its author and the contents of the fragment itself seem plausible and render it probable that Roterius is indeed a historical figure. Yet given the problematic witness, we cannot be entirely certain. The Life of Severus, written by an anonymous monk, has been dated to the end of the seventh century or shortly afterwards.2 Even if none of the names mentioned in the Life (bishop Beticus and senator Salustius) can be identified, and some of its details are questionable,3 the Life remains fairly sober and seeks to give a factual impression. The errors in the fragment may be due to Roterius or to the anonymous hagiographer who excerpted his work. The name is a variant spelling of Rudericus, attested as the name of a commander of the Gothic king Totila in 542–64 and very well attested in 1

On this period, see Claude 1970, 66–74; Collins 2004, 64–70. Le Clerc 1735, 403; ASS Aug V (Pinius, Cuperus, and Stiltingus 1741, 157–9). 3 ASS Aug V (Pinius, Cuperus, and Stiltingus 1741, 157–9). 4 PLRE III, 1096–7. 2

226

Roterius 227 early medieval Spain.5 It means ‘the victorious’.6 Roterius is said to have been a famous writer, expert in secular and sacred knowledge, and is praised by the hagiographer for his style. No such writer is attested elsewhere. But even without further confirmation, it is possible that a Visigothic author under Reccared I might have written about the city of Agde, which is situated in Septimania, at that time part of the Visigothic kingdom. The nature of the work is difficult to determine. The title seems to allude to the biblical Books of Kings (Libri regnorum), which covered the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It suggests a history of various peoples, and the fragment does indeed refer to the Vandals and the Huns. One possibility is that the work covered the various kingdoms that had been established in the Roman West, an interpretation that would rely heavily on the transmitted title. Another interpretation takes the fragment as its main guide, suggesting that the work covered the history of the territory of the Visigothic kingdom and its successive occupants just as the fragment records the vicissitudes of Agde under the Vandals and the Huns. If such an interpretation may seem to conflict with the title (for regna implies a multiplicity of kingdoms), we should note that Isidore of Seville’s History of the Goths (621–4), essentially covering the history of the Visigothic kingdom, is actually called Historia Wandalorum, Sueborum et Gothorum or De origine Gothorum et regno Sueborum et etiam Wandalorum historia liber unus. If we take into account the fact that the Suebi were defeated in 585 and their territory incorporated into the Visigothic kingdom, the biblical reference in the title may gain some weight: Roterius may have written a history of various kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula which were, just like Israel and Judah, related yet independent. His writing may then have been prompted by the conquest of the land of the Suebi and may have emphasized Spain’s providential unity.7 It has been noted that the Old Testament became an increasingly important model for Visigothic kingship in this period, and this may be reflected in Roterius’ work.8 Moreover, the reign of Reccared’s father Leovigild (569–86) had been marked by a series of revolts and civil wars, which came to a conclusion in 585 with the 5

E.g. one of the martyrs of Cordoba of 857: cf. Boullón Agrelo 1999. Schönfeld 1911, 195; Falcone 1993, 253. 7 On the superiority of the Visigoths in Visigothic historiography, see Teilleit 1984, esp. 463–501 on Isidore; Pizarro 2003, 57–9; Merrills 2005, 45; Wood 2012, 153–61, 189. For Isidore’s emphasis on the unity of Spain, see Pohl and Dörler 2015, 139. 8 Bronisch 1998, 49–55 and 2005, 169–73. For Isidore’s portrayal of the Goths as a chosen people, see J. Wood 2013. 6

228 Roterius death of his eldest son Hermenegild.9 This, again, may have spurred the writing of a history that emphasized unity. In addition, F. Riess has shown that the region of Narbonne was, at this time, one of the centres of the Visigothic kingdom and the place where Liuva, the brother and predecessor of Leovigild, had been proclaimed king in 567. An historian tied to this dynasty would have an interest in Septimania. Given that we do not know of any Western histories from this period that cover more than one kingdom or region, this second option seems the most likely. Roterius’ history must have been narrative in nature and must have contained more than one book, as the reference to libri implies. Its chronological scope is harder to determine: the fragment mentions Geiseric (king of the Vandals, 428–77) and his successor Huneric (477–84). Below, we suggest the possibility that the sack of Agde took place c. 406–9: in that case, the work covered, at least, the fifth century. If the suggestion holds that the work takes its cue from the incorporation of the Suevic kingdom in 585, then it must have run at least until that time.

Libri regnorum diversarum gentium F1: Life of Severus of Agde 7 (ASS Aug. V: Pinius, Cuperus, and Stiltingus 1741, 160; cf. D’Achery and Mabillon 1668, I, 564) Famulante exhinc prospera navigatione, in Gothorum delatus est t­ erram, in fauce quadam Araurica, quae ab Agathensi urbe duobus ferme millibus distat. Quae urbs in Septimania posita quondam exstitit opulentissima & nimium populosa: sed exigentibus piaculis incolarum, a rege Wandalico Geiserico, qui universam paene Africam invasit, incendio conflagrata est miserali. Deinde ab Hunnerico principe Alanico crudelissimum pertulit excidium. Postmodum vero subsequenti tempore Attila Avarorum rex profanus, & nimium truculentus, qui quasi omnes Gallias debellavit, sicut & innumerabiles urbes reliquas, & hanc a fundamentis evertit, sicut continetur in regnorum libris diversarum gentium, quos pretiosissimo dictamine & in luculento sermone, insignis historiographus edidit nomine Roterius. Hic etenim temporibus Reccaredi hujus & Gothorum regis honestissime floruit tam in divinis, quam in m ­ undialibus disciplinis.

9

Kulikowski 2004, 276–82; Riess 2013, 131–59.



Libri regnorum diversarum gentium

229

After this, thanks to a successful sea journey, he arrived in the land of the Goths, in a certain narrow section of the river Hérault, which is located nearly two miles from the city of Agde.10 This city, located in Septimania,11 was once very rich and quite populous: but a penalty was demanded from the inhabitants, and Geiseric, king of the Vandals, who had invaded almost all of Africa, burned the city in a horrible fire.12 Thereafter, it suffered a most cruel destruction by Huneric, leader of the Alans.13 Afterwards, at a later point in time, Attila, the impious and exceedingly ferocious king of the Avars,14 who overcame nearly all of Gaul as well as innumerable other cities,15 also razed this city to the ground, as is contained in the books of the Reigns of various peoples, which a distinguished historian named Roterius has published in a rich style and in a clear language. Indeed, in the times of this Reccared, the king of the Goths,16 he flourished most honourably in both divine and secular disciplines.

10

Agde is located just south of Montpellier and east of Narbonne on the Mediterranean coast. It is best known for the Council of Agde in 506: cf. Caesarius of Arles, Letter 3; Life of Caesarius of Arles 1.21; Ruricius of Limoges, Letter 2.33, 2.35. For a brief history, see Février and Barral i Altet 1989, 45–9. This text is not listed among their sources. 11 Septimania was the western part of Gallia Narbonensis and part of the Visigothic kingdom since 461. From the second half of the sixth century, the Visigothic hold on Gaul was reduced to this territory under pressure from the Franks. The term Septimania first occurs in Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 3.1.3, and probably acquired currency only in the second half of the fifth century: see Delaplace 2008. Agde remained in the hands of the Visigoths: see Gregory of Tours, Histories 6.2; Julian of Toledo, History of Wamba 13. Pseudo-Fredegar (continuation) 20 records its destruction in 739 by Charles Martel. 12 Geiseric, king of the Vandals (428–77). Cf. Merrills and Miles 2010; Vössing 2014. 13 Huneric, king of the Vandals and Alans (477–84). The title rex Vandalorum et Alanorum is first officially attested for Huneric in 483 and 484 (Victor of Vita, History of the Vandal persecution 2.39, 3.3), but earlier in narrative sources: Continuatio Alcobaciensis of Prosper a. 455: Berndt 2007, 203–7. 14 Attila was king of the Huns (434–53), but they were often assimilated with the Avars (John Malalas, Chronicle 18.125; Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 9.2.6; Gregory of Tours, Histories 4.29; PseudoFredegar, Chronicle 4.48, 4.75; Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6050; Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 1.27, 2.10). The Avars only enter the scene in the second half of the sixth century: cf. Pohl 1988. On Attila, see C. Kelly 2009; Maas 2015; Rosen 2016. Such an assimilation of Avars and Huns is in line with the date of Roterius. 15 The phrase, with its juxtaposition of the whole of Gaul and individual cities, recalls somewhat that of Hydatius, Chronicle 142 (150): Gens Unorum pace rupta depraedatur provintias Galliarum; plurime civitates effractae, and Isidore of Seville, History of the Goths 25: … Galliarum provincias saeva depopulatione vastantes atque urbes plurimas evertentes. 16 Hic etenim temporibus Reccaredi hujus & Gothorum regis is awkward. In our translation, we have taken huius to refer to Reccared, but this does not explain the et and would only make sense if Reccared had already been mentioned before. The alternative is to take huius to refer to Roterius: ‘Reccared, who was his king and that of the Goths’. Note that the hic with which the sentence opens refers to Roterius.

230 Roterius Commentary On a strict reading, the fragment includes only the reference to the destruction of Agde by Attila. Yet given that Roterius focused on various peoples, it is likely that the references to Geiseric and Huneric derive from him, too. The chronology of the fragment is confused. Geiseric (428–77) must have been the first to sack Agde during one of his raids; Attila was the second in 451; Huneric must have been the last. The information provided here about the raids on Agde is unique and not always easy to fit into what we know from other sources. For the dating of the sack by Geiseric, there are three options. First, it could have happened during one of the Vandal raids after they had settled in Africa. There is indeed extensive evidence for raiding in the Mediterranean by the Vandals under Geiseric,17 even reaching Galicia in 445.18 Raids on Visigothic territory happened after Geiseric ruptured relations with the Visigoths in 442.19 Victor of Vita makes a general reference to raiding in Spain, referring to the period 457–74.20 The focus of the raids, however, was the Roman territories in the Adriatic and Eastern Mediterranean,21 with periods of high intensity after 45522 and in 467–8.23 The treaty of 476 with Constantinople greatly reduced raiding in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is, however, no other evidence to indicate that the Vandals raided so far north as Agde.24 In the list of regions given by Victor of Vita (1.51), Gaul does not feature. Yet a raid there would not be completely impossible: we cannot trust our sources to give us a full list of regions targeted. The second option would be to date the sack to before the Vandals crossed into Africa. Hydatius, for example, records the Vandals’ pillaging of Spain and the Balearics in 425.25 This hypothesis requires that we 17

Victor of Vita, History of the Vandal persecution 1.13, mentioning conquests of Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, and the Balearics; 1.51, mentioning raiding in Spain, Italy, and other provinces. See also Priscus F10 (c. 447/8), with Bayless 1979 and Croke 1983; Modéran and Perrin 2014, 187; Procopius, Wars 1.5.22–35, Sidonius Apollinaris, Poem 5.385–430. See Merrills and Miles 2010, 113–18; Modéran and Perrin 2014, 184–99; Vössing 2014, 63–7. 18 Hydatius, Chronicle 123 (131): Courtois 1955, 194; Merrills and Miles 2010, 113–14. 19 See the overview of Vössing 2015. 20 Victor of Vita, History of the Vandal persecution 1.51: Modéran and Perrin 2014, 189. 21 Procopius, Wars 1.3.23. 22 Priscus F31, with a focus on the regions close to Italy in 456–8: Modéran and Perrin 2014, 190; Hydatius, Chronicle 195 (200), an attack on the fleet of Majorian. 23 Priscus F53 = Theophanes, Chronicle AM 5961; Procopius, Wars 1.6.1–2. 24 Cf. Courtois 1955, 194. 25 Hydatius, Chronicle 77 (86).



Libri regnorum diversarum gentium

231

presume that Roterius or the author of the Life erred by ascribing the action to Geiseric, for his brother Gunderic was still leading the Vandals at this time, and mistakenly assumed that the raid was launched from Africa. Moreover, Agde was at this time in Roman hands, and so any action north of the Pyrenees would mean a direct threat to Roman interests. This seems, then, a very unlikely option. The third option would situate the sack even earlier: Agde would be on the Vandals’ path during their descent into Spain after their crossing of the Rhine in 406/7.26 The sack would then have happened at some point before September/October 409, when the Vandals crossed into Spain.27 This would, obviously, presuppose the same errors needed for hypothesis 2. If the first option preserves the natural meaning of the text, it requires us to accept that Vandal raiding reached even further than is usually assumed. As noted above, the second option is unlikely in the historical context. Option 3 would fit most easily with what we further know of the history of Agde, but it requires us to accept serious errors on the part of Roterius or the author of the Life. Option 1, therefore, seems most likely, but one should not forget that the rest of the fragment does contain clear errors. Indeed, the alleged sack of Agde by Attila is a fiction. There is no evidence that Attila came so far south during his invasion of Gaul in 451: the text clearly has a very inflated sense of what Attila did. In fact, many Gallic cities falsely claimed to have been attacked by Attila.28 Finally, a raid by Huneric is unlikely. He ruled after Geiseric had re-established cordial relations with the Visigoths in 476.29 There is, then, much that is implausible in this fragment, and how many of these errors are to be attributed to Roterius or to the author of the Life of Severus must remain unknown. Even so, it is clear that the fragment belongs to the pro-Gothic tendency also observed in Jordanes and Isidore of Seville, whereby the Vandals and the Huns appear as enemies of the Goths,30 even if, in the case of Isidore, the Roman state ranks highest among their enemies.31 26

See the map of Courtois 1955, 46. Cf. Heather 2006, 207; Modéran and Perrin 2014, 68–70. Hydatius, Chronicle 34 (42). 28 Barnish 1992b, 44 lists Reims, Arras, Paris, and Metz, with references to sources. 29 Courtois 1956, 395–6; Vössing 2015, 23–5, pointing to Jordanes, Getica 244. 30 Isidore of Seville, History of the Goths 22, 25–30, 38; cf. Ghosh 2016, 81–7. For Jordanes, see Van Nuffelen and Van Hoof 2020b. 31 Fontaine 2000, 228. 27

19

Secundus of Trent History

Secundus was an abbot living in Non, near Trent.1 He became a monk in 565, possibly at a fairly young age, for he died forty-seven years later in March 612.2 By 603, he was an abbot.3 He had connections with the Langobard court: at Easter 603 he became godfather of Adaloald, the son of King Agilulf (591–616) and Queen Theodelinda (died 628), a Catholic Bavarian princess. In that same year, Theodelinda wrote to Gregory the Great asking for a reply to the request by Secundus to have a copy of the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.4 Secundus, therefore, may be assumed to have been close to the queen.5 Following the local bishop, Agnellus of Trent,6 he refused to condemn the Three Chapters. This condemnation of the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyr had been enacted at the Second Council of Constantinople and accepted by Rome, but was greeted with much resistance, especially in northern Italy.7 Secundus thus belonged to the north-Italian schismatics. His request for information about the Council of 553 may indicate an interest in polemic as much as it may signal a spirit of reconciliation. Paul the Deacon (cf. T1–2) and F1 consistently call him 1

On Secundus’ life, see Waldherr 1995; Pohl 2007. See T2 and F1 below. 3 Gregory the Great, Letter 14.12 (November 603). 4 Gregory the Great, Letter 14.12. Secundus is often identified with the Secundinus of Letter 9.148 (599) (Pohl 2007, 247; Antonopoulos 2016, 75), which is also about the Three Chapters schism. Capo 1992, 504 notes that if this is true, Secundus may not yet have been closely associated with the court at that time, as Gregory does not mention this association. 5 Emphasis on Secundus as a courtier in Bognetti 1967; Garstad 2016b, 240. Hammer 2014, 241 suggests the frescoes of Langobard history in Theodelinda’s palace were inspired by Secundus’ history and argues (257) that Secundus wrote to support the claims of Adaloald, Theodelinda’s son. The latter argument fails to persuade because (1) at the time of Secundus’ death (612) Agilulf was still on the throne, Adaloald having been proclaimed co-ruler in 604 as an infant. It is somewhat obscure why Adaloald should need special support; (2) it is, as we argue below, far from certain that Secundus wrote after 590. 6 Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 3.26. 7 Pohl 2007; Sotinel 2007; Price 2009; Hammer 2011, 222. 2

232



Secundus and the Sources of Paul the Deacon

233

Secundus servus Christi, an appellation often applied to clergy and monks. It is therefore likely that this name was used in his history too. The work of Secundus is usually called a chronicle, but we argue below that the evidence from its main user, Paul the Deacon, implies that it was a narrative history with a local focus on Trent. It certainly covered the years 580–8, but it is plausible that it began with the Langobard entry into Italy (568) and ended with the death of King Authari in 590. The general assumption that it also covered the early years of the seventh century is not supported by the evidence. Paul the Deacon calls the work a succinta de Langobardorum gestis historiola, offering a description of the content rather than an exact title, which must remain unknown. F1 implies that Secundus wrote his history in (at least) two stages, one that ended in 580 and a final edition that ended in 590. Yet F1 can also mean that Secundus wrote another work of history. At any rate, Secundus wrote history long before his known association with the court, and so we should avoid seeing him as a court historian. Indeed, F1 does not date by the reigns of the Langobard kings and betrays a strongly local focus that is also visible in the material from Paul. This suggests that Secundus’ original focus was on local history rather than a celebration of the Langobard kings.

Secundus and the Sources of Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards Except for F1, Secundus’ history is attested only in the History of the Langobards by Paul the Deacon (c. 725–95), which was composed towards the end of Paul’s life. It covers the history of the Langobards from their origins until the reign of Liutprand (712–44). The work seems unfinished: it lacks a final redaction, and Paul probably planned to extend its coverage up to his own time.8 The major sources for the history were the Origo gentis Langobardorum (under Rothari, 636–52), the Getica of Jordanes, the Histories of Gregory of Tours, the Letters of Gregory the Great, the Roman Liber pontificalis, and Bede’s Chronicle and Ecclesiastical history, supplemented with oral information of Langobard origin.9 It is also usually assumed that the work of Secundus of Trent was a major source for Paul’s narrative.

8

Löwe 1953; Goffart 1988, 329–30; Capo 1992, xviii–xxix; McKitterick 2004, 60–83; Plassmann 2009, 191–206; Schwarz 2009, 7–38. Schwarz 2009, 44–54.

9

234

Secundus of Trent

The common hypothesis is, first, that Secundus of Trent wrote a chronicle, covering the years from 568, the invasion of the Langobards, until 612, the year of his death; and second, that it was the main source of Paul the Deacon’s History of the Langobards for this period.10 It is thus usually assumed that Secundus is the source for the greater part of books 3 and 4 of the History of the Langobards, and even parts of book 2. Precise ascriptions of individual chapters vary, but there seems little doubt that Secundus is the major source for these three books.11 Secundus’ history had a focus on local events in Trent and is generally supposed to be supportive of the royal policy of King Agilulf.12 This generally shared hypothesis is unlikely to be correct. The first element has been challenged before, namely that Secundus wrote a chronicle and not a narrative work.13 In what follows, we shall discuss the second element, Paul the Deacon’s use of sources in books 2–4, and argue that it reveals two different types of underlying account, one narrative and another chronographic. Because the chronicle account extends beyond the death of Secundus, his history can only be the source of parts of books 2 and 3. This implies, in turn, that Secundus wrote a narrative history.

10

Bethmann 1851; Jacobi 1877, 63–80; Waitz 1880; Rinaudo 1882; Schmidt 1888, 394; Quaresima 1952; Löwe 1953, 206; Bognetti 1967, 361; Gardiner 1983; Bullough 1986; Cervani 1986; Goffart 1988, 381, 400; Capo 1992, 515; Pohl 1994, 375–83; Coumert 2007, 151–2; Pohl 2007, 255; Schwarz 2009, 44–5; Zecchini 2009, 97; Borri 2014. Admittedly, it is not always clear what each scholar means by ‘chronicle’: on the vagueness of usage in scholarship, see Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 1–62. 11 Jacobi 1877 attributes to Secundus: Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 2.7, 2.8, 2.10, 2.12, 2.14, 2.25–7, 2.30–1, 3.9–10, 3.13–14, 3.16, 3.18, 3.20, 3.23, 3.26–7, 3.30–1, 3.35, 4.1–8, 4.11–17, 4.19, 4.21–2, 4.24–34, 4.36–7, 4.41–2. Rinaudo 1882 attributes to Secundus: Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 2.7–10, 2.14, 2.25–8, 2.31–2, 3.9–10, 14–16, 20, 23, 26–7, 30–1, 35, 4.1–15, 4.20–40. There is debate about particular passages: e.g. 3.30 (for: Bognetti 1967, 167; against: Gardiner 1983, 152). Jacobi 1877, 63–80 also included 2.12 and 3.13, as well as 4.41. Gardiner 1983, 150–1 excludes 4.9, 4.22, 4.37–8. Cervani 1986, 97 supports the inclusion of 2.32, 3.16, and 4.27 on the basis of linguistic criteria (the use of hospites and societas in a different sense from that which was usual in the eighth century) and many other passages for reasons of content (praise of Agilulf ). Yet the linguistic argument proves only that the source did not date to the eighth century, not that it was Secundus. Roberto 2014, 1170 suggests that the use of indictions in the Origo gentis Langobardorum may derive from Secundus. We know that Secundus used indictions, but indiction datings were used quite extensively. Paul also uses indictions in later sections (5.11–12) that certainly do not derive from Secundus. Bethmann 1851, 380–1 suggested that the Continuatio Havniensis Prosperi had used Secundus (cf. Hille 1866, 10), but see Jacobi 1877, 80–1. 12 Cervani 1986, 102; Garstad 2016b. 13 Hammer 2011, 232 n. 69; Garstad 2016b. This is, in a way, anticipated in the dissident (and mistaken: cf. Waitz 1880) view of Mommsen 1880, 74–6, who considered Secundus to have written an epic history of migration, identifying the Origo gentis Langobardorum as an excerpt from Secundus. See also Bognetti 1967, 361–2.



Secundus and the Sources of Paul the Deacon

235

Let us start with book 4 of the History of the Langobards. Gardiner 1983 showed clearly that until chapter 40, the book offers a very detailed account of the years 590–612, which contrasts with the dearth of information afterwards. Paul was clearly using a chronicle source, offering precise dates (often dating events to the month), in addition to material drawn from Bede’s Chronicle and the Histories of Gregory of Tours.14 Precise indications of the year are usually absent, but Paul may have suppressed these to offer a smoother narrative. The text also pays particular attention to natural phenomena, such as the weather and comets, and to Frankish affairs.15 This part of Paul’s narrative consists of fairly brief notices following one another in a chronological order, clearly reminding one of extant Latin chronicles such as Marius of Avenches and John of Biclar. Exceptions to this pattern are 4.15–19 and 4.37–8, which are more extensive and contain saga-like information.16 The letter of Gregory the Great in 4.9 was probably also added from a different source.17 These passages have some interest in Trent,18 and its bishop Agnellus is said to have gone on an embassy to the Franks.19 Such a pattern is not replicated in book 3. There the narrative consists of a series of episodes, usually narrated at much greater length, but without the year-by-year chronological progression.20 We do not get the impression of a set of entries culled from a chronicle. There is a limited interest in natural phenomena in Veneto and Liguria,21 and some precise dates.22 There is some interest in Frankish affairs, but the material is mostly derived from 14

Such dates are found both earlier (2.7, 2.25, 3.23, 3.27, 3.31, 3.35) and later (5.31, 5.34), but not in the same density. 4.27–8 has three examples of dating by day and month (4.27 = Secundus T1). 15 Gardiner 1983, 150–1. Gardiner also alleges a particular interest in Bavarian affairs, limited to this part of the History of the Langobards, but Paul also discusses the Bavarians in earlier and later books (1.27, 5.36, 6.21, 6.35, 6.43–4, 6.58). This cannot be a particular feature of the source of book 4 (and hence not of Secundus, either). 16 Gardiner 1983, 147. 17 Gardiner 1983, 151 also excludes 4.22, on the paintings of the Langobards ordered by Theodelinda. 18 Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 4.1–2, 4.10, 4.27, 4.40. Cf. Jacobi 1877, 65; Capo 1992, 483. 19 Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 4.1. 20 Garstad 2016b argues that Secundus of Trent was inspired by the Alexander Legend to craft the figure of King Authari (584–90), narrated in book 3. The argument presupposes the attribution of passages from Paul to Secundus that are not usually accorded to the latter (such as 3.32: Garstad 2016b, 229) and is therefore highly speculative. Although Garstad fails to consider the difference in nature between books 3 and 4, his argument highlights the narrative nature of the information presented in book 3. 21 Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 3.23. Partially drawn from Gregory the Great, Dialogues 2.19.1–3. 22 Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 3.23, 3.30, 3.35.

236

Secundus of Trent

Gregory of Tours23 with the exception of 3.9–10 and 3.34–5. The book also has an interest in Trent.24 If in book 4 religious affairs are mentioned at the point in time when they occurred, in book 3 they are grouped in a digression, which also mentions the Three Chapters.25 Book 2 is similar to book 3, with a more narrative outlook than book 4. It displays characteristics of book 4 more weakly than book 3: it has a few precise dates,26 but little interest in Frankish affairs27 or in Trent.28 It mentions (at length) a plague in 2.4 and an apparition of fiery swords in 2.5. In the face of this pattern, the assumption that large parts of books 2–4 must derive from a single source is problematic. At the beginning of book 4, Paul had access to a different source, which was a chronicle in nature, in contrast to the earlier source, which was narrative in nature. The testimonia we have for Secundus support the identification of his history as the narrative source used in parts of books 2–3, but not as the chronicle underlying book 4. First, as far as the chronological range of Secundus’ work is concerned, we only know for certain that it covered the year 580 (F1) and that Paul expected to find the events of 588 in the historiola (T3). There is no hint that it also covered events from 591 until 612.29 The evidence thus allows us to consider Secundus a source for books 2 and 3 (covering c. 568–74 and 574–90, respectively), but not for book 4. Second, the notice of Secundus’ death in March 612 (T2) is part of the sequence of chronographic information in book 4. It is followed by an account of the death of Theudebert II at the hands of his brother Theuderic II later that same year. The notice of Secundus’ death and the consecutive notices all conform to the pattern of the other notices in book 4 that derive from a chronicle as source. If one identifies Secundus as the source of book 4, one is forced to accept the hypothesis that someone continued Secundus’ work, for Secundus cannot have recorded his own death or the death of Theudebert. The traditional hypothesis is that only the entry of 612 was added.30 Yet the difference in the nature of the m ­ aterial 23

Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 3.12–13, 3.21–2, 3.28–9. Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 3.9–10, 3.26–7, 3.31. 25 Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 3.23–6. The passage is ascribed to Secundus by Pohl 2007. 26 Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 2.7, 2.25. 27 Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 2.2, 2.6, 2.10. 28 In 2.31, the last chapter, Duke Ewin, who plays an important role in the following books, is mentioned. 29 On the meaning of usque ad sua tempora of T2, see ad loc. 30 Gardiner 1983, 152–3, addresses the problem and suggests the possibility that the report of Secundus’ death derives from a colophon. There is no parallel for such colophons in seventh-century chronicles, and one would still need to accept the idea of a continuation of the chronicle that contained more than Secundus’ death. 24



Secundus and the Sources of Paul the Deacon

237

seen in books 2–3 and book 4 suggests a different solution: the material in book 4 derives from a different text that was not by Secundus. Third, Paul the Deacon describes Secundus’ work as de Langobardorum gestis historiola (T2). The description de Langobardorum gestis presumes a clear focus on the history of the Langobards, whereas the chronicle-type material in book 4 has a wider interest and records many episodes not related to the Langobards,31 just as a chronicle would do. If one takes Paul’s description to be a title (which we do not: see below p. 240), one has additional reason to consider Secundus’ history to be narrative in nature, for other late antique histories bearing a title containing (res) gestae tend to be narrative works, not chronicles.32 To sum up, the material in books 2–4 usually ascribed to Secundus derives, in fact, from two sources: the history of Secundus, running until c. 590, and a chronicle running from 590 until 612. The history was narrative, not a chronicle, covering at least the years 580–8. Given its description by Paul as de Langobardarum gestis, it is plausible that Secundus’ work started with the arrival of the Langobards in Italy.33 It is even possible that it recorded earlier events.34 The death of King Authari in 590 would seem a logical end point, but again, there is no proof.35 Given that the chronicle source behind book 4 shared an interest in Trent and in Secundus himself, it seems likely that it derives from a similar milieu. One may even hypothesize that the two works were joined in a single text, with the chronicle effectively continuing the history. Such a mixture of genres is not uncommon: it can also be found in the Continuatio Havniensis Prosperi, the Syriac Chronicle of 724, and the continuations of Isidore of Seville’s History of the Goths (the Chronicles of 741 and 754).36 If the evidence provided by Paul the Deacon suggests a history running until 590, F1 offers a different perspective. The fragment is a chronological calculation of the year 580, clearly composed in that same year. Such calculations were usually inserted at meaningful points in a history. The fragment proves that Secundus was already writing history in 580. This 31

Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 4.11, 4.15, 4.28, 4.40. CHAP s.v. Julius Valerius, Festus, Ammianus Marcellinus, and Isidore of Seville. See also F1, which dates from their entry into Italy. 34 Argued by Garstad 2016b, 238, who rightly challenges the generally held idea that saga-like events should derive from oral transmission and not written texts, such as that of Secundus. This is, however, not a proof that Secundus covered the early history of the Langobards, too (cf. Everett 2003, 86): it only allows for the possibility. 35 Note that Bognetti 1967, 361–5 argued for a fundamental turn in Secundus’ perspective due to the marriage of Theodelinda and Authari in 589, when Secundus became close to the court, and thus seems to suppose that the history was made up of two parts. 36 CHAP s.v. 32 33

238

Secundus of Trent

allows for two possibilities: either he had started his history already and updated it in 590, or F1 stems from a different work altogether. Whatever option one chooses, it has important consequences for our understanding of Secundus. The general tendency is to consider that Secundus’ historical work was patronized by the Langobard kings and that his history was designed to support the ruling house, in particular Agilulf.37 Yet F1 does not mention the Langobard kings, and dates events by Byzantine emperors and the local bishop; it betrays, moreover, a strong focus on Trent and Non. Secundus may, then, have become a favourite of the court in later years, but when he started writing his history, his focus was local, without a hint of particular interest in the court. Indeed, if Secundus’ main aim was to shore up the Langobard kings, then a focus on Trent would not be very useful, as the kings resided in Pavia. Moreover, assuming that Secundus finished his history shortly after 590, it was finished for almost a decade before the first attestation of contact between Secundus and Theodelinda.38 We should, therefore, be very cautious when casting Secundus as some sort of court historian. He had a career as an historian before his association with the court.

Historiola? T1: Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 4.27 (Bethmann and Waitz 1878, 125 ll. 14–18) Hoc anno Gaidoaldus dux de Tridento et Gisulfus de Foroiuli, cum antea a regis Agilulfi societate discordarent, ab eo in pace recepti sunt. Tunc etiam baptizatus est praenominatus puer Adaloald, filius Agilulfi regis, in Sancto Iohanne in Modicia, et susceptus de fonte est a Secundo servo Christi de Tridento, cuius saepe fecimus mentionem. Fuit autem festi pascalis dies eo tempore septimo idus aprilis.

In this year Gaidoald, the duke of Trent, and Gisulf of Friuli,39 although they had before refused contact with King Agilulf,40 were received by him 37

Everett 2003, 86–7; Borri 2014; Hammer 2011; Pohl 2012, 115; Garstad 2016b. Gregory the Great, Letter 9.148 (599): see p. 232 n. 4 above. Antonopoulos 2016, 25–7, 50. 40 Nothing more is known about this disagreement. Gaidoald was the successor of Ewin as duke of Trent and a Catholic (Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 4.10). Gisulf died in the Avar invasion of the early sixth century (Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 4.37). Agilulf ruled 590–616. 38

39

Historiola?

239

in peace. Then the aforementioned boy Adaloald,41 son of King Agilulf, was baptized in the church of Saint John in Monza, and he was received from the font by Secundus of Trent, the servant of Christ,42 whom we have often mentioned. At that time the day of the Easter feast was the seventh day before the Ides of April.43 Commentary At this point, Paul has mentioned Secundus only once (3.29 = T4). He will mention him once more at 4.40 (= T2). Garstad 2016b, 237 suggests that Paul actually means that he has often used Secundus in the preceding narrative. This is stretching the Latin, and one should note that not that many individuals are mentioned more than three times in Paul the Deacon’s history. The episode shows Secundus in close contact with the royal court and his local duke: the reconciliation of Gaidoald with the king is celebrated by the baptism of the royal prince Adaloald, with Secundus taking the role of godfather. The baptism was an important event. It was the first time a future Langobard king was baptized as a Catholic. After him all kings were Catholic, marking the progressive conversion of the entire Langobard aristocracy.44 The choice of Secundus, a clergyman aligned with the north-Italian schismatics, may be significant: the Langobards would not be in communion with Rome or Constantinople. The reference to the resolution of a conflict with the dukes of Trent and Friuli, preceding the baptism, suggests a link between both events: the baptism may also mark their reconciliation with the king. In that perspective, one can imagine Secundus, himself coming from Trent, as playing a role in brokering the peace. T2: Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 4.40 (Bethmann and Waitz 1878, 133, ll. 16–21) Rex vero Agilulf pacem cum imperatore in annum unum itemque in alterum faciens, cum Francis quoque iterato pacis concordiam ­renovavit. Hoc nihilominus anno Sclavi Histriam, interfectis militibus, ­lacrimabiliter depraedati sunt. Sequenti quoque mense martio defunctus 41

King 616–26. That is, Secundus was the spiritual father of Adaloald: Capo 1992, 504. Cf. Jussen 1991. For other examples of the ritual, see Pseudo-Fredegar, Chronicle 4.33, 4.62. 43 7 April 603. 44 Christie 1995, 185–6; Hammer 2014. 42

240

Secundus of Trent

est aput Tridentum Secundus servus Christi, de quo saepe iam diximus, qui usque ad sua tempora succinctam de Langobardorum gestis conposuit historiolam.

King Agilulf, who made peace with the emperor for one year and then for another, also renewed the bond of peace with the Franks again.45 Nevertheless, during this year, the Slavs horribly plundered Istria after killing the soldiers. Moreover, in the following month of March, Secundus, the servant of Christ, of whom we have already often spoken, died near Trent.46 He composed a short history about the deeds of the Langobards up to his own time. Commentary Succinta de Langobardorum gestis historiola is best understood as a description of the nature of the work rather than a title.47 Historiola, ‘little history’, is emphasized by succincta, ‘brief ’, suggesting that, unlike when Paul refers to his own History of the Langobards, in six books, as a historiola (1.21), the term here is more than an expression of modesty. It may rather indicate that the work of Secundus was short, maybe only one book, although, as shown below, F1 might hint at the existence of two books. Such an interpretation is supported by how Isidore of Seville describes the historiola of Maximus of Zaragoza (see FHistLA 20 T1): brevi stylo historiolam.48 Both of these works have been interpreted as chronicles,49 but there is no linguistic reason why this should be the case. Contrary to the universal tendency to understand qui usque ad sua tempora succinctam de Langobardorum gestis conposuit historiolam as offering us a precise starting point (568, the year the Langobards left Pannonia) and end point (612), T2 does not prove such a time span. Usque ad sua tempora only has to mean 45

In 611. In 612, as the war between Theuderic of Burgundy and Theudebert of Austrasia, mentioned by Paul in the subsequent lines as happening in the year of Secundus’ death, is dated to this year (PseudoFredegar, Chronicle 4.38). 47 Pace Mommsen 1880, 72, 75. Zecchini 2009, 97 considers it to be the title given by Secundus himself in a display of modesty. Zecchini refers to Jordanes’ use of historiuncula for the Romana. But that too is not a title. For criticism, see Borri 2014, 43 n. 22; Garstad 2016b, 241. 48 Isidore of Seville, On illustrious men 46. Hammer 2014, 241 n. 19 says that Paul borrowed the description from Isidore. We fail to see why this should be the case. 49 Schwarz 2009, 251 glosses this in his translation as ‘chronikartige Geschichte’. 46

Historiola?

241

during Secundus’ own lifetime, not that he was writing history until his dying breath. Nor does the statement confirm that Secundus began with the arrival of the Langobards: he may have started his history at an earlier or later point of Langobard history. F1 calculates years from the arrival of the Langobards, and this may support the idea, but is, again, not conclusive. It is thus plausible that Secundus started in 568, but not certain. T3: Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 3.29 (Bethmann and Waitz 1878, 108 ll. 13–23) Inter haec legationem ad imperatorem Mauricium direxit, mandans ei, ut, quod prius non fecerat, nunc contra Langobardorum gentem bellum susciperet atque cum eius consilio eos ab Italia removeret. Qui nihil moratus, exercitum suum ad Langobardorum debellationem in Italiam direxit. Cui Authari rex et Langobardorum acies non segniter obviam pergunt proque libertatis statu fortiter confligunt. In ea pugna Langobardi victoriam capiunt; Franci vehementer caesi, nonnulli capti, plurimi etiam per fugam elapsi vix ad patriam revertuntur. Tantaque ibi strages facta est de Francorum exercitu, quanta usquam alibi non memoratur. Mirandum sane est, cur Secundus, qui aliqua de Langobardorum gestis scripsit, hanc tantam eorum victoriam praeterierit, cum haec quae praemisimus de Francorum interitum50 in eorum historia hisdem51 ipsis paene verbis exarata legantur.

Meanwhile, he [sc. Childebert] sent an embassy to the emperor Maurice,52 informing him that he would now undertake a war against the people of the Langobards, which he had not done before, and that he would remove them from Italy in consultation with the emperor.53 Without delay, he sent his army to Italy to overcome the Langobards. King Authari54 and the Langobard army set off zealously to meet them, and they fought bravely to maintain their state of freedom. In that battle the Langobards seized victory; the Franks were slaughtered vehemently, some were captured, many more escaped by fleeing and barely returned to their homeland. 50

interitu Luiselli. eisdem Luiselli. 52 582–602. 53 c. 588. 54 584–90. Authari is absent in Gregory of Tours: Paul probably has focalized the narrative on him. 51

242

Secundus of Trent

Such a great massacre was made of the army of the Franks as has not been recorded anywhere else. It is certainly surprising why Secundus, who has written much about the deeds of the Langobards, should have passed over such a great victory of theirs whilst these things that we have just said about the destruction of the Franks can be read in their own history, recorded in almost these same words.55 Commentary The episode (588) is part of a series of attempts by the Byzantine state to expel the Langobards, in collaboration with the Franks (576–90). Through the treaty of 605, the Byzantines accepted the permanent presence of the Langobards.56 Paul complains that this episode is not recorded in Secundus, implying that his history ran until at least 588. F1: Scholion in Stuttgart, Landesbibliothek H.B. VI 113, f. 92 r. (Quaresima 1952; cf. Bethmann and Waitz 1878, 18–19 n. 3; Leicht 1906)57 A principio usque ad passionem Domini sunt anni V milia CCXXVIIII. Passo Christo usque in presente anno sunt DLIIII. Et a presente pascha, iuxta prophete eloquium, secundum quod humana fragilitati datur capere intellectum, restant de presenti seculo anni CCXVII. Et in hoc supra memorato anno fuit bissextus, residentibus in Italia Langobardis anno XII, eo quod secunda inditione in ea ingressi sint mense maio. Acta sunt suprascripta omnia in civitate Tridentina in loco Anagnis, presedente Agnello episcopo anno III expleto. Ego Secundus servus Christi scripsi hec conversionis sacre relegionis mee anno XVmo, imperii Tiberii anno primo mense iunio58 indicione XIII.

From the beginning until the Passion of the Lord, there are 5229 years.59 From the Passion of Christ until the present year,60 there are 554 years. And 55

Gregory of Tours, Histories 9.25. In the Continuatio Havniensis of Prosper, as in Paul, the same episode is followed by the marriage of Authari to Theodelinda (Hille 1866, 35). 56 Wood 1994, 167–9; Christie 1995, 86–91; Pohl 1997. 57 Borri 2014, 55 offers text and translation, but the former contains some errors. 58 maio Quaresima: clearly a misprint, as the photograph of the manuscript shows. 59 This most likely implies an incarnation date of AM 5200, derived from Jerome, with an acceptance of the short ministry of Christ (one year). 60 580.

Historiola?

243

from this Easter, in accordance with the word of the prophet,61 according to what the intellect, with its human frailty, is given to grasp, 217 years still remain from this age.62 And the previously mentioned year was a leap year,63 when the Langobards had been residing in Italy for twelve years, because they entered there in the month of May in the second indiction.64 All that was previously mentioned happened in the city of Trent, in the town of Non, in the third full year of the episcopate of bishop Agnellus.65 I, Secundus, servant of Christ, have written this in the fifteenth year of my conversion to the holy religion,66 in the first year of the reign of Tiberius, in the month of June, in the thirteenth indiction.67 Commentary The fragment is unrelated to the collection of canon law in the manuscript in which it is found.68 In the absence of an explicit attestation we cannot be entirely sure that this fragment stems from the history,69 but it clearly derives from a work reporting some events of 580. In favour of identification with the history, we can note that 580 falls within the scope of Secundus’ history, for the fragment refers to events after the invasion of the Langobards. The fragment comes from a supputatio (a summary calculation of the years) made in the year 580. Such calculations were often included at the end of chronicles (e.g. Cassiodorus, Victor of Tunnuna, John of Biclar, Chronicle of 754), but also occur in narrative histories and in the middle of works.70 Unless we assume that this comes from another work of Secundus, it must have been situated somewhere in the middle of his history, as it ran at least until 590 (cf. T3). If we assume that the supputatio was inserted at a meaningful point in the narrative, one

61

Cf. 2 Peter 3.8; Epistle of Barnabas 15.4. That is, Secundus puts the end of times (when the 6000 years have been completed) 217 years from 580. 63 I.e. 580. 64 May 569, for the second indiction is 568/9. Created by Diocletian and starting in August 297, the indiction cycle was originally a fifteen-year cycle in which tax liabilities were re-assessed. It survived as a dating mechanism. 65 Cf. Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 3.26, 3.31, 4.1. 66 Secundus thus became a monk in 565. 67 I.e. June 580, the thirteenth indiction being 579/80. The first year of Tiberius II would, however, be 578/9. 68 Lo Monaco 2012, 84–6. 69 Cervani 1986, 97, who proposes that it derives from the acts of a council, but it is unclear on what that suggestion is based; Lo Monaco 2012, 84 n. 24. 70 Prosper, Chronicle 1311–18 (the remainder of an earlier edition); Jordanes, Romana 85. 62

244

Secundus of Trent

could point out that 580 is roughly mid-way between 569 (the entry of the Langobards) and 590 (the death of Authari), possibly the start and end dates of the work. It might also have marked the end of a book. Yet this can only be a hypothesis, for there is another explanation. The end of the fragment states that it was written in 580. This allows for two options, each of which has significant implications for our understanding of Secundus’ historical activity. First, if we take the fragment to come from the history, then we must assume two phases in the redaction, for T3 implies that Secundus also covered 588. If so, then it is mistaken to assume (as is usually done) that Secundus wrote at the behest of Theodelinda: she only married Authari and came to Italy in 589. He may have written the second part of his history at royal request, but he must have already been known for his historical interests. Second, if the fragment derives from another work, then we must attribute to Secundus a wider interest in the writing of history, which again shows that his historiographical activity was not simply the result of royal command. This fragment does not allow direct conclusions about the nature of Secundus’ narrative. F. Borri emphasizes the matter-of-fact way of reporting,71 but this may be due to the fact that it is a supputatio. Of more interest are the other features that we can derive from the present fragment. The events to which the supputatio was originally attached took place very locally, in Non. A local Tridentine focus is apparent in sections of books 2–4 of Paul the Deacon’s History of the Langobards.72 We cannot guess to which events Secundus refers, as Paul offers no information on these years and fills up the narrative with information about the Byzantine emperors (3.11–15).73 Secundus used the Annus Mundi-calculation of Jerome and accepted that at the end of 6000 years the current saeculum would come to an end. Secundus uses a host of dating formulae, including one beginning with the arrival of the Langobards. The calculation is consistent with the less detailed information given in the Origo gentis Langobardorum:74 the Langobards left Pannonia in the first indiction (568) and arrived in Italy in the second (569). It is also consistent with that given by Paul the

71

Borri 2014, 56–7. Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 2.2, 2.32, 3.9–10, 3.26, 3.31, 4.1–2, 4.10, 4.27, 4.40, 5.46. These events are often supposed to have been those reported at Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 3.9 (Lo Monaco 2012, 89), but they are dated to 575: see Capo 1992, 464. 74 Origins of the Langobards p. 4 l. 17 (Waitz 1878). 72 73

Historiola?

245

Deacon, History of the Langobards 2.7, which gives, just like T1 above, an exact Easter date.75 As is shown in this fragment, Easter dates were important for Secundus, for Easter was the basis of his calculation of years. One might, therefore, be tempted to consider 2.7 a passage drawn from Secundus.76 75

Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards 2.7 : Igitur Langobardi, relicta Pannonia, cum uxoribus et natis omnique supellectili Italiam properant possessuri. Habitaverunt autem in Pannonia annis quadraginta duobus. De qua egressi sunt mense aprili, per indictionem primam, alio die post sanctum Pascha, cuius festivitas eo anno iuxta calculi rationem ipsis kalendis aprilis fuit, cum iam a Domini incarnatione anni quingenti sexaginta octo essent evoluti. 76 Jacobi 1877, 72 states that Paul took this from the Origins of the Langobards, but the origo gives less detail than Paul.

20

Maximus of Zaragoza History

Maximus was bishop of Zaragoza from 592/9 to 614/20. The nature of his work is uncertain. Older scholarship tended to understand it as a chronicle, whereas in more recent considerations a narrative history seems to be preferred (see commentary on T1). Yet, in Isidore of Seville’s On illustrious men, historia can designate a chronicle (like that of Victor of Tunnuna), and the praise he showers elsewhere on the style of a chronicle is very similar to that addressed to Maximus.1 Therefore, one should not discard the possibility that the historiola, as Isidore terms Maximus’ work, was a chronicle. The work covered events in Spain from the establishment of the Visigothic kingdom, which could mean a starting point as early as the second decade of the fifth century. The work may have run until Maximus’ own time. Isidore does not say that it was a history of the Goths, but a history of events that happened in Spain when the Goths had settled there. This differentiates it from histories of the Goths like the one composed by Isidore.

Historiola? T1: Isidore of Seville, On illustrious men 33 (Codoñer Merino 1964, 153.1–5; cf. PL 83, 1106B (chapter 65)) Maximus, Caesaraugustanae urbis2 episcopus, multa versu prosaque componere dicitur. Scripsit et brevi stylo historiolam de iis quae temporibus Gothorum in Hispaniis acta sunt, historico et composito sermone. Sed et multa alia scribere dicitur, quae necdum legi.

1

Isidore of Seville, On illustrious men 25, 31. civitatis: PL.

2

246

Historiola?

247

Maximus, the bishop of the city of Zaragoza, is said to have composed many works in verse and prose. He has also written a brief history in a concise style about the events that took place in the time of the Goths in Spain in a historical and well-constructed discourse, but he is also said to have written many other works, which I have not yet read.3 Commentary This is the last entry in the De viris illustribus (dated 615–18), and Maximus therefore occupies a place of honour in Isidore’s work. Scholars have attempted to identify the historiola with existing works. Herzberg 1874, 64–73, followed by Mommsen 1894a, 221–3, argued that the so-called chronica Caesaraugustana4 derived from the historiola, and that Isidore of Seville had used Maximus in his History of the Goths. This has been refuted.5 More recently, Collins 1994 proposed an identification with the short version of the history of the Goths attributed to Isidore of Seville.6 Although it is not uncommon for the work of lesser authors to circulate under the name of their famous colleagues, there is little to commend this hypothesis, let alone to prove it.7 Moreover, according to Isidore, Maximus dealt with the time when the Goths were in Spain, and thus not with the history of the Goths themselves: temporibus Gothorum is a temporal indicator, not a description of content. This renders the identification proposed by Collins highly unlikely. We should, then, abstain from attempts at identifying the historiola with any text we possess. 3

We take this last sentence to mean that Isidore has not yet read the other works composed by Maximus, not that he had not read the historiola either. 4 Better called Consularia caesaraugustana, attested as a series of notices from 450 to 568 in one manuscript of Victor of Tunnuna and John of Biclar: Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 196–7; CHAP s.v. 5 Collins 1994; Cardelle de Hartmann 2001, 115*–24*; Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 196–7. Collins 1994, 164 suggests that Isidore acquired the work via Braulio of Zaragoza. 6 Followed by Burgess and Kulikowski 2013a, 196–7; see also Fontaine 2000, 224. 7 This theory has not received support from scholars working on Isidore: see e.g. Chiesa and Castaldi 2004, 370–9; Velázquez 2015.

Spuria et Dubia

21

Bruttius History?

Previous editions: HRR II 160; FRHist 98. Bruttius is first cited in the Chronicle of Eusebius as evidence for the persecution of Christians and the confession of Flavia Domitilla under Domitian; he also appears in John Malalas as a source for other information. His fragments have recently been edited in FRHist, which considers two options. According to the first, Bruttius was a third-century Christian who composed a chronicle in Greek. In that case, he is an interesting witness to the writing of Christian chronography in the third century, possibly but not certainly, after Julius Africanus. The alternative is to consider him a non-Christian historian who may have written in Greek or Latin between 96 and 324.1 Barbara Levick and John Rich, the authors of the entry in FRHist, are inclined, with due hesitation, to accept the first option. We agree with Levick and Rich that Bruttius is an unlikely candidate for inclusion in a collection of Latin historians. Nevertheless, we offer a new discussion and edition of Bruttius, because FRHist does not print the Syriac and Armenian attestations of his work, and because we argue for a different understanding of Bruttius and his fragments: we suggest Bruttius was an author of an unknown type of work who only made a general mention of a persecution of Christians under Domitian. Though it is likely that Bruttius was a Christian, there is no reason to deduce from his quotation in historical works that he wrote a history. Almost every fragment spells the name of the author in a different way: Βούττιος (F1a); Βρούττιος (F1b and F3d); Βόττιος (F2); Bruttius (F3b); Βώττιος (F3c); Βρέττιος (F3a and F3e). The common identity of all these names is demonstrated by F3, in which all witnesses (the Armenian Eusebius, Jerome, John Malalas, the Paschal Chronicle, and George

1

See esp. Syme 1985.

250

Bruttius 251 Syncellus) report the same event. The original name was certainly a form of Bruttius: only in John Malalas has the r systematically dropped out. The variety of spellings is best explained if the name was originally the Latin Bruttius, as in Jerome: it explains why the Greek forms either have an o-sound (ου or ω) in the first syllable or preserve the r and change the o into an e as in the Armenian Eusebius and Syncellus (F3a and F3e).2 Bruttius is a well-attested Italian name, especially in southern Italy. It is particularly known through the senatorial family of the Bruttii Praesentes, attested in the second and third centuries.3 It is possible to establish a clear genealogy of the fragments. A first strand (F3) goes back to the Chronicle of Eusebius, but via different intermediaries.4 The Armenian Eusebius and Syncellus both relied on a manuscript of Eusebius that used the spelling Brettios. Jerome translated the same entry into Latin. The Paschal Chronicle copied John Malalas (F1), but also had independent access to Eusebius: in F3d, it correctly reports that the persecution took place in the fourteenth year of Domitian, information that is absent in Malalas. This independent use of Eusebius is probably also the grounds on which the Paschal Chronicle corrects the incorrect form of the name seen in John Malalas (F1b).5 This, incidentally, is an indication of 2

Incidently, Brettius is a known variant of Bruttius. We do not think, pace FRHist 98, I, 594 that Brettios was the form used by Eusebius, as it would fail to explain the transition to the o-forms used by Malalas. Jeffreys 1990, 174 thought that this was an unidentifiable author, but see Gelzer 1885, I, 282 and the literature cited in FRHist 98. Malalas scholars tend to ignore the identification with Bruttius (e.g. Jeffreys 1996, 66–7) or continue to adhere to the form ‘Bouttios’, as does Garstad 2005, 2014, 2016a, and 2018. His extensive and speculative identification of fragments from ‘Bouttios’ in John Malalas and other sources fails on chronological grounds, as he supposes a date in the middle of the fourth century or later. Indeed, the extant witnesses to the transmission of Eusebius in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Latin all contain the name, proving that it was already in Eusebius’ chronicle. Garstad 2018, 918 argues that the first mention is in Jerome’s chronicle in 380 and hence that Bouttios could have written in the fourth century. This argument presupposes that almost the entire reception of Eusebius’ Chronicle relies on a single interpolated version, which is implausible. We agree, however, that F1 and F2 are later attributions to Bruttius and are unlikely to have been in Eusebius. The parallels with the Excerpta Latina Barbari in F1 and F2 (see below) suggest a fifthcentury date for that material. 3 TLL s.v.; Henze 1897. Syme 1985 identified the historian with the consul of 139, for which there is no evidence: FRHist 98, I, 594. 4 Gelzer 1885, I, 282–3 shows that there is no reason to trace the fragments back to Julius Africanus. 5 One could argue that the Paschal Chronicle did not have direct access to Eusebius but rather to a fuller version of John Malalas. Our knowledge of Malalas in Greek is mainly dependent on the abridged version of Codex Baroccianus gr. 182, whilst the so-called Fragmenta Tusculana offer remnants of a fuller text on which the Paschal Chronicle depended (see Schulz 2017). A fuller text is also attested in the Slavonic translation. Nevertheless, the edition of Thurn (2000), which takes into account all witnesses and adds to the Greek on the basis of the Slavonic, does not affect the passages in which Bruttius is mentioned. This suggests that it is more plausible to assume that the author of the Paschal Chronicle did indeed have direct access to Eusebius.

252 Bruttius the working method of the author of the Paschal Chronicle, who copied large sections of Malalas, but also seems to have had access to Eusebius. It also implies that the Paschal Chronicle understood the Bouttios named by Malalas to be identical with the Bruttius of Eusebius.6 A second strand is represented in Malalas (F1–2), who not only consistently spells the name as forms of Bottius, but also adds two more fragments, one of which is copied by the Paschal Chronicle (F1b), as indicated above. Both fragments were embedded by Malalas in a new context and probably need to be boiled down to a reference to the myth of Perseus (F1) and a reference to the conquests of Alexander (F2). This split in the tradition suggests that F1–2 were not in Eusebius’ Chronicle. Indeed, both also display parallels with the Excerpta Latina Barbari, which reflects a fifth-century Alexandrian tradition. This implies, in turn, that Malalas or his source either found extra material in Bruttius (or an intermediary source), or adduced Bruttius’ name as an authentication strategy to support the veracity of material he was actually adding to the chronographic tradition. In the case of F2 we suggest that the latter is the case and that this is also a likely reading for F1. There is, finally, another possibility. Malalas always calls Bruttius Bouttios or Bottios. The Paschal Chronicle identified this Bouttios with the Bruttius named by Eusebius, an identification that is certain for F3. One could argue that this identification is unnecessary and that F1–2 derive from a different author than F3. As the name is rare enough to make the existence of two Bruttii with a literary output a very curious coincidence, we consider this is a less likely option than the interpretation we have offered. But even so, it would lead to the same conclusion: F1–2 are unlikely to derive from the Bruttius mentioned by Eusebius.7 Interpretation must, therefore, rely on F3. In our commentary, we allow for two possibilities. Bruttius may have mentioned only the persecution of Christians, to which Eusebius himself has added the case of Domitilla. In this interpretation not only is Bruttius likely to have been a Christian, but any date after Domitian is possible, even an early one. The other option is to accept that Bruttius mentioned the persecution and the exile of Domitilla, rendering him, rather than Eusebius, the first Christian author to do so. This would suggest a later date, allowing some time for the Christian reinterpretation of the Domitilla case. Indeed, it has 6

For doubts about whether F1–2 derive from the Bruttius named by Eusebius, see FRHist 98, I, 593. When these additions are to be dated is another matter. Pace Garstad 2005, 2014, 2016a, and 2018 (see p. 251 n. 3), there are no grounds for a mid-fourth-century date.

7

Historia?

253

been suggested that Bruttius might have been a Christian freedman of the senatorial family, who flourished in the late second or the third century,8 that is, in the period that other Christian sources identify Domitian as a persecutor (see commentary on F3). Yet the only terminus ante quem in this case is the publication of the chronicle of Eusebius in 325.9 On either interpretation, we should be wary of seeing Bruttius as an historian. Only John Malalas identifies him as a chronographer and an historian: Malalas, however, uses these as generic terms for authors.10 Pre-Eusebian references to the persecution of Domitian in Christian sources occur in apologists,11 and Eusebius does cite non-historians as authorities for events in his Chronicle.12 The language in which Bruttius wrote cannot be determined. The name Bruttius suggests a Latin speaker, although upper-class Romans were fluent in Greek, too. Eusebius has knowledge of Latin works, although some of these may have reached him indirectly.13 There is, then, no compelling reason to take Bruttius to be an historian: he may well have been a Christian author of another type of work, who wrote in Latin or Greek.

Historia? F1a: John Malalas, Chronicle 2.11 (Thurn 2000, 25) ὁ δὲ σοφώτατος Βούττιος, ἱστορικὸς χρονογράφος, ἐξέθετο ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς Πῖκος ὁ καὶ Ζεὺς οὖσαν ταύτην ἐν κουβουκλείῳ παρακειμένῳ τῇ θαλάσσῃ πολλῷ χρυσῷ πείσας ἠδυνήθη προτρεψάμενος· ἥντινα ἁρπάσας ὡς πάνυ εὐπρεπῆ ἔφθειρεν, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἔσχεν υἱὸν ὀνόματι Περσέα, τὸν προειρημένον.

The most learned Bouttius, the historical chronicler, reported that, while she14 was in a bedroom situated by the sea, the same Zeus Picus persuaded 8

FRHist 98, I, 594–5. Carriker 1999, 81–3 (cf. 2003, 196) argues that Eusebius cites Bruttius through the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus, with the argument that in the section of the Ecclesiastical history (3.11–20) where Domitilla is mentioned (3.18), Eusebius tends to rely on Hegesippus (he is cited in 3.20). This is possible but cannot be proven. It would yield an early date for Bruttius, before or during the middle of the second century AD. 10 E.g. John Malalas, Chronicle 4.10. 11 See p. 259 n. 34. 12 Cf. Jerome, Chronicle 219a. 13 Carriker 2003. 14 I.e. Danae. 9

254 Bruttius her with much gold and was able to convince her. He kidnapped her, and – since she was particularly beautiful – raped her; and he had a child by her named Perseus, who has already been mentioned. F1b: Paschal Chronicle 38CD (Dindorf 1832, 69) ὁ δὲ σοφώτατος Βρούττιος, ὁ ἱστορικὸς καὶ χρονογράφος, ἐξέθετο ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς Πῖκος ὁ καὶ Ζεὺς οὖσαν ταύτην ἐν κουβουκλείῳ παρακειμένῳ τῇ θαλάσσῃ πολλῷ χρυσίῳ πείσας ἠδυνήθη προτρεψάμενος ἐκβαλεῖν, ἥντινα ἁρπάσας ὡς πάνυ εὐπρεπῆ ἔφθειρεν, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἔσχεν υἱὸν ὀνόματι Περσέα, τὸν προειρημένον.

The most learned Bruttius, historian and chronicler, reported that, while she was in a bedroom situated by the sea, the same Zeus Picus persuaded her with much gold and was able to convince her to exit. He kidnapped her, and – since she was particularly beautiful – raped her; and he had a child by her named Perseus, who has already been mentioned. Commentary The identification of Zeus with Picus, the son of Saturn and king in Latium, is first attested in Malalas and thence transmitted to the Paschal Chronicle and John of Antioch.15 It is also present in the so-called Excerpta Latina Barbari, an eighth-century Latin chronography which translates a fifth-century Alexandrian original.16 It represents the confluence of a Greek and a Latin tradition,17 which, on the evidence of the Excerpta, was in place by the end of the fourth century.18 It was facilitated by the fact that Zeus is the son of Kronos and Picus that of Saturn, and by the traditional identification of Kronos and Saturn. As Malalas usually identifies Zeus with Picus, it is likely that he imported this identification in the citation from Bruttius. Bruttius probably did not do more than narrate a euhemeristic version of the story of Perseus.19 15

Malalas 1.8 and following. Excerpta Latina Barbari 1.6 (Frick 1892, 236 ll. 6–8), which signals a variety of identifications of Picus. On this work, we follow Burgess 2013, with further references. See also CHAP s.v. 17 Cook 1925, II, 693–4; Krappe 1941. Cf. Jeffreys 1996, 66–7; Beatrice 2001a, lvii–lviii; Garstad 2016a, 911. 18 Garstad 2004 speculatively ascribes it to a fourth-century Christian source. 19 Cf. FRHist 98 on F1. Garstad 2016 presumes that all mentions of Picus–Zeus go back to ‘Bouttios’, but this is an inference not warranted by the fragment. 16

Historia?

255

The story of Perseus’ birth is generally not told in the chronicle tradition. Eusebius alluded to it, as a known story, in his list of Athenian kings.20 Similarly, Syncellus mentions that he was the son of Danae,21 but without giving the details found in Malalas. It is, in other words, part of Malalas’ narrative expansion of the skeleton that he found in existing chronicles. Because Malalas, or his source, was expanding on what the chronicle tradition stated, the question arises as to whether or not the name Bruttius was inserted here as a claim to authority. F2: John Malalas, Chronicle 8.1 (Thurn 2000, 146–7) καὶ νικήσας τὸν Δαρεῖον, βασιλέα Περσῶν, τὸν Ἀσσαλάμου, παρέλαβεν αὐτὸν καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν χώραν Ἀσσυρίων καὶ Μήδων καὶ Πάρθων καὶ Βαβυλωνίων καὶ Περσῶν καὶ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς γῆς, καθὼς Βόττιος ὁ σοφώτατος συνεγράψατο, ἐλευθερώσας ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰς χώρας καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν Ῥωμαίων καὶ Ἑλλήνων καὶ Αἰγυπτίων ἐκ τῆς Ἀσσυρίων καὶ Περσῶν καὶ Πάρθων καὶ Μήδων ὑποταγῆς καὶ δουλείας, ἀποδοὺς ‘Ρωμαίοις πάντα ἃ ἀπώλεσαν.

Alexander defeated Darius, king of Persians and son of Assalamus, and captured him, all his kingdom, all the land of Assyrians, Medes, Parthians, Babylonians, and Persians, and all the kingdoms on earth, as the most learned Bottius wrote. The same Alexander also freed the cities, the territories, and all the land of Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians from submission and slavery to the Assyrians, the Persians, the Parthians, and the Medes; he gave back to the Romans everything they had lost.

Commentary In a strict interpretation, the fragment consists only of the first half of the sentence. This line has clear affinities with the Greek chronicle tradition, except that Malalas calls Darius the son of Assalamus, whereas the normal form in Greek is ὁ Ἀρσάμου. It has a point of contact with a sentence 20

Karst 1911, 86.30–1, cf. canons a. Abr 629: ‘here the story of Perseus’ (Karst 1911, 165). George Syncellus, Chronicle p. 189 Mosshammer.

21

256 Bruttius drawn from the first book of Eusebius’ Chronicle, the chronographic part, which is preserved only in Armenian. At the end of a list of Persian kings, Eusebius states: ‘Alexander, (son) of Philip killed him and all at once he seized lordship over the Persians and the Assyrians, twelve years’.22 This might imply that Malalas, or his source, has transferred the name of a source he found in Eusebius to another piece of information from the same Eusebius. The second part of the fragment is curious, for it states that Alexander returned to the Romans the territory they had lost to Darius. Roman literature speculated about what would have happened if Alexander had turned West.23 There is a parallel in the Excerpta Latina Barbari,24 stating that after Tarquinius Superbus God handed the land of the Romans to the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, and Medes. Rome was only freed by Alexander the Great. It reads like a garbled reference to a Roman tradition of the succession of world empires (from the Assyrians to the Persians, Macedonians, and finally Romans),25 in which the idea of being the most powerful state at a particular time is understood as actual occupation of the entire world. This would help to make sense of Malalas’ confused statement that Alexander freed the Romans from Persian slavery. Thus John Malalas seems to have been relying on the same tradition as the Greek original of the Excerpta.26 In sum, here Malalas seems to be using a source that expanded on the Eusebian material, in this case containing garbled information. As with F1 above, this implies that the historical Bruttius, who wrote before 325 and was quoted by Eusebius, can hardly be the author of this fragment. F3a: Armenian translation of Eusebius, Chronicle (Aucher 1818, ii, 278–9; cf. Karst 1911, 218) Aucher 1818, I, 105: Armenian Զնա սպան աղե սանդրոս փիղիփեայ, և միանգամայն պարսից և ասորեստանեաց իշխանութեանն տիրեաց ամս Ժբ: tr. Karst 1911, 33 ll. 27–8: ‘Diesen tötete Alexandros der Philippide und bemächtigte sich zugleich der Perser- und Assyrerherrschaft, 12 Jahre’. English translation by Andy Hilkens. 23 Livy 9.17–19; Lucan 10.36–41; Curtius Rufus 10.1.17–18; Alexander Romance β/L, 1.29–30; Julius Valerius 1.22. Cf. Braccesi 2006, 54–67. 24 Excerpta Latina Barbari 1.6.6 (Frick 1892, 244 ll. 11–23) 25 On this historiographical tradition, see Van Nuffelen 2012a, 48–9. 26 Garstad 2018 analyses the parallels and also refers to Fulgentius, On the ages of the world and man 10. Note that the Excerpta Latina Barbari are also the best parallel for Malalas’ identification ժբ of Zeus with Picus (see p. 254 n. 16). Indeed, Malalas can be shown to use material from the same historiographical tradition: see e.g. the story on Faunus, a son of Picus–Zeus: John Malalas, Chronicle 1.13–14 and Excerpta Latina Barbari (Frick 1892, 238 ll. 3–19). It is followed in both texts by references to Heracles. 22

Historia?

257

և պատմէ բրէտտիոս, բազում բրէտտիոսրիստոնէից առ դոմէտիանոսիւ վկայեալ: և փղաւեա դոմէտիղա (և) փղաւոսի կղէմեայ հիպատի բրէտտիոս եռորդի փախեաւ ’ի կղզին պոնտիա. բրէտտիոսանզի բրէտտիոսրիստոնեայ զանձն խոստացաւ:

And Brettios reports that many Christians were martyred under (literally: near) Domitian. And Flavia Domitilla, son27 of the sister of consul Flavius Clemens, fled to the island of Ponza, because she had confessed that she was a Christian.28 F3b: Jerome, Chronicle a. 96 (Helm 1956, 192e) […] Scribit Bruttius plurimos Christianorum sub Domitiano fecisse martyrium. Inter quos et Flaviam Domitillam, Flavii Clementis consulis ex sorore neptem, in insulam Pontiam relegatam, quia se Christianam esse testata sit.

[…] Bruttius writes that many of the Christians were martyred under Domitian. Amongst them also Flavia Domitilla, niece of the consul Flavius Clemens by his sister, was exiled to the island of Ponza, because she declared herself a Christian.29 F3c: John Malalas, Chronicle 10.48, ll. 39–41 (Thurn 2000, 199) πολλοὺς δὲ ἄλλους Xριστιανοὺς ἐτιμωρήσατο, ὥστε φυγεῖν ἐξ αὐτῶν πλῆθος ἐπὶ τὸν Πόντον, καθὼς Βώττιος ὁ σοφὸς χρονογράφος συνεγράψατο κατ’ αὐτῶν.

The Armenian translator seems to have mistaken Flavia Domitilla (փղաւեա դոմէտիղա) for a man. One possible explanation might be that he used the Syriac text as a secondary source (cf. Karst 1911, xliii–liv), and overlooked the in , thus reading (‘son’) instead of   (‘daughter’). 28 Translation by Andy Hilkens. The episode is reported in year fourteen of Domitian, a date that is confirmed by the Paschal Chronicle (F3d). Eusebius reports the same episode in the Ecclesiastical history (3.18.5), but he dates it to year fifteen. 29 Jerome has shifted the notice to year sixteen of Domitian. 27

258 Bruttius He punished many other Christians: as a consequence, a great number of them went into exile to Pontus, as the wise chronicler Bottius wrote about them.30 F3d: Paschal Chronicle 250C (Dindorf 1832, 468) Ἱστορεῖ ὁ Βρούττιος31 πολλοὺς Xριστιανοὺς κατὰ τὸ ιδ’ ἔτος Δομετιανοῦ μεμαρτυρηκέναι.

Bruttius reports that many Christians were martyred during the fourteenth year of Domitian. F3e: George Syncellus, Chronicle pp. 419–20 (Dindorf 1829, 650.16–19; Mosshammer 1984, 419–20) πολλοὶ δὲ Χριστιανῶν ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ Δομετιανὸν, ὡς ὁ Βρέττιος ἱστορεῖ, ἐν οἷς καὶ Φλαυία Δομετίλλα ἐξαδελφὴ Κλήμεντος Φλαυίου ὑπατικοῦ, ὡς Χριστιανὴ εἰς νῆσον Ποντίαν φυγαδεύεται· αὐτός τε Κλήμης ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ ἀναιρεῖται.

Many of the Christians were martyred under Domitian, as Brettius reports: amongst them also Flavia Domitilla, niece of the consular Clemens Flavius; as a Christian, she was banished to the island of Ponza. Clemens himself was executed for Christ.32 F3f: Chronicle of 72433 (Brooks 1904, 119.27–120.1; cf. tr. Chabot 1904, 93.24–7) = Michael the Great, Chronicle 6.3 (Chabot 1910, 102; cf. tr. Chabot 1899, 170) 30

The account is garbled: exile has become flight, and Ponza has become Pontus. Manuscripts P and V read Βροῦτος. 32 The death of Clement is added by Syncellus himself or on the basis of a different source. 33 The Chronicle of 724 includes what is commonly known as the ‘Epitome Syria’, an abridged Syriac version of Eusebius’ Chronicle. Indirect quotation of the Epitome can be found also in the Maronite Chronicle, the Chronicle of Zuqnin, the Chronicle of 846, and Michael the Great (Debié 2015, 20–2). Nevertheless, besides the Chronicle of 724, Michael the Great is the only text to keep the reference to Brettius. Translation by Marianna Mazzola. 31

Historia?

259

Burt·nus narrates that many Christians became martyrs in the time of Domitian and that Flavia Domitilla, daughter of the sister of the consul Clemens, fled to the island of Ponza because she professed to be a Christian. Commentary FRHist 98 includes Eusebius, Ecclesiastical history 3.18.4, the reference to Domitian’s persecution, as a fragment of Bruttius. According to the method espoused in this volume, there is no reason to do so, as Bruttius is not mentioned there. We shall see below that there are other than methodological reasons why this is a correct choice. Second-century Christian sources talk about Domitian as a persecutor only in general terms.34 Concrete proof, in the form of the Domitilla affair, is first adduced by Eusebius.35 He is the first preserved author to identify Flavia Domitilla as a Christian who was exiled for her faith, a claim that was clearly in need of support, for he cites unnamed pagan sources as authorities in his Ecclesiastical history (3.18.4), and mentions Bruttius in his Chronicle. Among our extant sources, Suetonius and Cassius Dio mention the Domitilla affair, but they only mention atheism and an interest in things Jewish as points of accusation.36 According to Dio, Pandateria, close to Ponza, was the island of exile.37 It is possible that Eusebius used Cassius Dio in his Ecclesiastical history (3.18.4), for he follows his dating to the fifteenth year of Domitian. There are other indications of knowledge of Cassius Dio elsewhere in his oeuvre, so he is a possible source.38 Yet Dio does not mention the persecution of Christians, meaning that Eusebius took the accusation of judaizing to mean a persecution. If Eusebius is indeed the first Christian author to have turned the Domitilla affair into a persecution, he thus consciously 34

Melito of Sardis = Eusebius, Ecclesiastical history 4.26.9; Tertullian, Apology 5.4. Cf. Lactantius, On the deaths of the persecutors 3. 35 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical history 3.18.5 and the passage from the Chronicle in F3. 36 Suetonius, Life of Domitian 15.1; Cassius Dio 67.14.2. 37 For further historical discussion, see FRHist 98 on F3. 38 Carriker 2003, 153–4.

260 Bruttius reinterpreted the execution of Clement and the exile of Domitilla as a persecution of Christians. Let us now turn to the entry of the Chronicle. H. Gelzer interpreted this passage from the Chronicle as offering the name of the pagan historian that was withheld in the Ecclesiastical history.39 Though this seems plausible at first sight, there are two problems with it. First, the entry in the Chronicle dates the event to year fourteen of Domitian,40 the history to year fifteen. Second, as Eusebius knew Cassius Dio, why would he have recourse to an obscure author like Bruttius if Dio would have provided much better authority? This suggests that the entry in the Chronicle represents a source tradition different from the one used in the Ecclesiastical history. The next question to ask is what it was that Bruttius actually said. If Jerome’s translation (F3b) and that of the Chronicle of 724 (F3f ) take Bruttius to have mentioned both the persecution and the exile of Domitilla, John Malalas (F3c) and the Paschal Chronicle (F3d) reduce the information to a statement of persecution under Domitian.41 Syncellus (F3e) illustrates the difficulty: it is natural to assume that Bruttius is the authority for all the information given here, but the entry can also be taken to imply that Bruttius is only responsible for general information about the persecution. In the light of these considerations, we can now address the three options that present themselves: Bruttius mentioned the persecution and Domitilla; he mentioned only the persecution; or he mentioned only Domitilla. In the first two cases, Bruttius must have been a Christian author, as non-Christian sources do not know of a persecution under Domitian. According to the third option, Bruttius simply mentioned the Domitilla affair without necessarily specifying that she was Christian, as did Suetonius and Cassius Dio. In that case, he is unlikely to have been a Christian. Yet, as we have seen, our evidence suggests that Bruttius mentioned at least the persecution and possibly also Domitilla. As a consequence, the third option is unlikely. Regarding the two other options, one would suspect that Eusebius added the reference to Domitilla from a source he had used in the Ecclesiastical history, that is, Cassius Dio. This would make Bruttius a witness to the Christian idea that Domitian was a 39

Gelzer 1885, I, 282–3, followed by HRR II, ccviii; Merrill 1924, 164–8; FRHist 98, III, 630. Jerome modified the date to year sixteen, but F3a and F3d concur in year fourteen. 41 The Armenian translation (F3a) does not permit any conclusion, linking the two sentences with the conjunction և. 40

Historia?

261

persecutor, but no more than that. In this interpretation there is no reason to prefer a late date: Bruttius may have written as early as the late first or second century AD.42 If one accepts that Bruttius did mention Domitilla, then one may propose a later date, allowing some time for the Christian reinterpretation of that affair. 42

There is no reason to follow Gelzer 1885, I, 282–3, followed by HRR II, ccviii, and Merrill 1924, 164–8, in believing that Bruttius is a fiction invented by Christians. Even if Bruttius were a pagan, we are still dealing with a tendentious citation by Eusebius rather than a pure invention.

22

Latinus Alcimus Alethius Rhetor Panegyrics of Julian and Sallust

Latinus Alcimus Alethius was a rhetor from Bordeaux, whose floruit Jerome dates to 355.1 He was included as the second teacher in Ausonius’ Professors of Bordeaux and was still remembered by Sidonius Apollinaris in the fifth century.2 Ausonius refers to works written about Julian and Sallust, which have been interpreted as being historical works,3 but they are certainly panegyrics.

De Iuliano et De Sallustio? T1: Ausonius, Professors of Bordeaux 2, ll. 19–24 (Green 1991, 43; cf. EvelynWhite 1919, 100–3) Vivent per omnem posterorum memoriam, Quos tu †sacrae famae das†4 Et Iulianum tu magis famae dabis Quam sceptra, quae tenuit brevi. Sallustio plus conferent libri tui, quam consulatus addidit.

Those that you raise to sacred fame (?) will live in every memory of posterity, and you will give more renown to Julian5 than will the sceptre that he held only briefly. Your books will offer more fame to Sallust6 than his consulate has given him. 1

Jerome, Chronicle 239g. Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter 2.7, 5.10, 8.11. Cf. PLRE I, 39 (2). 3 Evelyn-White 1919, 101–3; Etienne 1962, 257. 4 dabas Evelyn-White. 5 The emperor Julian, Caesar 355–61, Augustus 361–3. 6 Flavius Sallustius: PLRE I, 797–8 (5); praefectus praetorio Galliarum 361–3 and consul 363. 2

262



De Iuliano et De Sallustio?

263

Commentary The works on Julian and Sallust are the only writings mentioned by Ausonius, who further emphasizes Alcimus’ forensic skills. Ausonius’ praise for Alcimus is such that he suggests that Julian and Sallust derive more fame from being praised by him than from what they actually did.7 If the plural libri may cause some uncertainty (panegyrics always are a single book), there can be little doubt that here we are dealing with panegyrics. It would be very unusual indeed to find a written history focused on a praetorian prefect and consul. One could conceive of a history written of the years 361–3, when Sallustius was prefect of Gaul, but it would not be remembered at the end of the fourth century as a history of Sallust but as a history of Julian or of Gaul. Moreover, the purpose of panegyric is to enhance the fame of the person praised and that is clearly what Alcimus did. It has been suggested that Alcimus wrote a single panegyric for Julian and Sallust, when they became the consuls of 363, or that he wrote one work for each at this occasion.8 It would be very unusual to praise an emperor alongside someone who was not his equal – panegyrics for two individuals are, in our extant material, directed towards pairs of emperors (Libanius, Oration 59 on Constantius II and Constans; Themistius, Oration 6 on Valens and Valentinian I). Thus, here we are dealing with two different orations which may well have been composed for two different occasions. Julian was in Gaul from 355 to 361, and many panegyrics must have been addressed to him during this time.9 As Ausonius mentions the consulate of Sallustius, one may be inclined to think that his nomination was the occasion, but this need not have been the case. Indeed, Ausonius mentions the consulate to demonstrate how the highest honour of Rome is still inferior to the praise given by Alcimus, and the sentence does not imply that the conferral of the office was the occasion for the oration. The panegyric may thus have been given at any moment during Sallustius’ tenure. Given that extant sources all link Alcimus to Gaul, it seems most likely to assume that the panegyrics were composed when their protagonists were in Gaul. 7

We are not sure that, as Green (1985, 502 and 1991, 334) states, this passage shows an unfavourable judgement on Julian’s reign, for the opposition between the brevity of Julian’s rule and the eternal fame through the praise of Alcimus is topical. 8 PLRE I, 39, 172; Green 1991, 334. Green 1985, 502 implies a single panegyric for Julian. 9 Green 1985, 505 suggests that Alcimus was a supporter of Julian, but that need not follow from the fact that he addressed a panegyric to Julian, especially not if it was made in the years 355–61, when Julian was still a loyal, Christian subordinate to Constantius II. Libanius also praised almost all emperors from Constantius II to Theodosius I.

23

Tyconius On civil war Expositions of different causes

Tyconius lived in the second half of the fourth century and early fifth century. Gennadius, who was writing in the 490s, makes him a contemporary of Theodosius I and his sons (379–423), and of Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 340–410).1 This is slightly later than the floruit of 370–80 and the date of death of c. 395 proposed by Vercruysse.2 His argument is that in the Against the Letter of Parmenian (c. 400), Augustine seems to presuppose that Tyconius was dead. Even if we do not know on what basis Gennadius gives his date, Augustine may not have had much information about Tyconius beyond what the latter’s writings implied. Hence, what Augustine seems to think cannot be a deciding argument. Tyconius was a Donatist, who sided with Rogatus against Parmenian in an internal Donatist dispute. The split is dated c. 370, leading to the creation of so-called Rogatianism.3 Tyconius was excommunicated by his bishop c. 380.4 Tyconius is best known for his extant handbook on the interpretation of the Bible (Book of rules) and his Commentary on the Apocalypse. Gennadius signals two lost works of Tyconius, which have been taken to be historical in nature. De bello intestino (On civil war) is often interpreted as an apologetic history of the Donatist schism, but it was more likely a spiritual treatise. Expositiones diversarum causarum (Expositions of different causes) was a defence of Donatism (and not Rogatianism), which included reference to unspecified church councils. The latter, like similar works by Optatus against the Donatists or Athanasius against the Arians, was, at best, para-historical.

1

Gennadius, On illustrious men 18: Floruit hic vir aetate, qua et ante memoratus Rufinus, Theodosio et filiis eius regnantibus. 2 Vercruysse 2004, 14. See also PCBE 1.1122–7. For the little we know about his life, see Hahn 1900, 5–6; Finaert and Congar 1963, 718–19. 3 Vercruysse 2004, 21. 4 Augustine, Letter 93.10.44. See Tilley 1997b.

264



De bello intestino and Expositiones diversarum causarum

265

De bello intestino and Expositiones diversarum causarum T1: Gennadius, On illustrious men 18 (Richardson 1896, 68) Tichonius natione Afer, in divinis litteris eruditus, iuxta historiam sufficienter et in saecularibus non ignarus fuit et in ecclesiasticis quoque negotiis studiosus. Scripsit De bello intestino libros5 et Expositiones diversarum causarum, in quibus ob suorum defensionem antiquarum meminit synodorum. E quibus omnibus agnoscitur Donatianae partis fuisse.

Tichonius, African by nationality, was learned in sacred literature, also decent enough in history, not ignorant of secular literature and diligent in ecclesiastical affairs. He wrote the books On civil war and Expositions of various causes, in which he makes reference to the ancient synods for the defence of his party.6 All of the aforementioned works signal his Donatist allegiance. Commentary The traditional interpretation is that both the On civil war and the Expositions of different causes were apologetic accounts of the Donatist schism.7 Indeed, it has been stated (without evidence) that both were meant to complement each other.8 Alternatively, they could have been accounts of the Rogatian schism, for Gennadius does not seem to have known that Tyconius was not a mainstream Donatist.9 It has even been suggested that they were accounts of the Donatist conflict, but offered interpretations that actually helped to cause the Rogatian schism.10 Indeed, scholars have taken both treatises to be early works of Tyconius, tentatively suggesting dates of 370 for the first and 375 for the second.11 Again, there is 5

libros tres PL 58, 1071. The reading is not to be accepted: see Richardson ad loc.; van Oort 2018b, 130. It is still often cited: Hahn 1900, 6; Frend 1952, 202; Vercruysse 2004, 19. 6 Van Oort 2018b, 130 entertains the possibility that suorum could mean ‘his followers’, that is, that Tyconius had a congregation. But there is no other hint that he was a bishop, and suorum is in the next sentence specified as those belonging to the Donatist party. 7 Frend 1952, 202; Monceaux 1920, 171–8; Tilley 1997a, 113. 8 Monceaux 1920, 232. 9 Vercruysse 2004, 21. 10 Pincherle 1925, 447; M. Simonetti in Di Berardino 1994, 119. 11 Finaert and Congar 1963, 719; Frederiksen 1991, 157 n. 39 and 2007; Tilley 1997a, 113.

266 Tyconius no reason to assume that Gennadius lists the works in the order they were written: the only thing we can say is that he discusses the Book of rules and the Commentary on the Apocalypse at greater length in the following section of his entry (which we have not printed), implying that these last two were the best-known works of Tyconius – a fact that is also borne out by the transmission of both.12 Thus, before we venture any hypothesis, we must pay closer attention to what Gennadius says. First, the traditional interpretation assumes that the subclause in quibus ob suorum defensionem antiquarum meminit synodorum necessarily refers back to both De bello intestino and Expositiones diversarum causarum. This is possible but not necessary: the subclause can also refer to the Expositiones alone. Such an interpretation is, in fact, suggested by Gennadius, who states in the next sentence that E quibus omnibus agnoscitur Donatianae partis fuisse: ‘All of the aforementioned works signal his Donatist allegiance’. E quibus omnibus implies a contrast with the preceding in quibus-clause and suggests that here the reference is to a larger group of works. In that case, only the Expositions were a defence of his group with reference to councils. The possibility that On civil war was something else is supported by the fact that in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, Tyconius develops the notion of internal enemies (hostes intestini), a spiritual notion describing the enemies of virtuous life.13 The title De bello intestino implies, then, an account of spiritual progress and conflict.14 Even if such an account were not a defence of Donatism, it may still have used a Donatist ecclesiology or contained pro-Donatist statements and would thus have betrayed Tyconius’ Donatist allegiance, as stated by Gennadius. If this interpretation is correct, there is no reason to date the work before the Rogatianist

12

The Book of rules is extant (Vercruysse 2004), whilst the Commentary is substantially quoted by later authors: see Gryson 2011a with van Oort 2018a. 13 Tyconius, Commentary on the Apocalypse 1.5.28–30, 1.11.132, 4.9.7–10, with Gryson 2011b, 47–50. For parallels in other authors, see van Oort 2018b, 138: e.g. Verecundus, Commentary on the Song of songs 1.4 (CCL 93, 6); Augustine, Letter 186; Paulinus of Nola, Letter 30; Prosper Tiro, Book of epigrams 95. 14 Gryson 2011b, 10, 48. See also van Oort 2018b, arguing that it is an account of the enduring war between good and bad Christians in the church. Pincherle 1925, 447 suggests that bellum intestinum refers to the conflict of Esau and Jacob as already manifested in the womb of Rebecca. Tyconius’ Book of rules suggests this is the type of persecution that the good shall suffer. If correct, this supports the spiritual interpretation offered here rather than the historical one Pincherle himself advocates. Paula Frederiksen (2007) states that both treatises ‘asserted the universality of the church and the necessarily mixed moral status of its members: the church, Tyconius held, in the time before the End, must comprise both sinners and saints.’ This is quite possible, but only projects generally known facts about Tyconius’ theology onto these treatises.



De bello intestino and Expositiones diversarum causarum

267

split c. 370. The present interpretation allows for the possibility that On civil war was the work mentioned in Augustine’s Against the Letter of Parmenian (c. 400) as the target of Parmenian’s criticism. Second, in the title Expositiones diversarum causarum, diversae causae most likely refers to the different ‘cases’ of Donatists and Catholics, reflecting the vocabulary used in other works for describing the conflict between these two groups. For example, at the Conference of Carthage (411), the Donatists wished to discuss the causa Caeciliani (that is, the question of whether Caecilianus had been illegally ordained), whereas the Catholics insisted on the causa ecclesiae (that is, the question of whether the Donatists held the right view of the church).15 This confirms what Gennadius says about its apologetic character. There is no indication that it dealt with the conflict between Donatists and Rogatianists: at any rate, there is no causa Rogati mentioned in the sources. Third, Gennadius notes that the Expositions referred to councils ob suorum defensionem.16 Given that Gennadius shows no knowledge of the Rogatian schism and simply defines Tyconius as a Donatist, the most likely interpretation of sui is Donatists in general. This would exclude the possibility that it addressed the Rogatian schism: the Expositions were most likely an anti-Catholic account, just as Optatus’ Contra Parmenianum Donatistam is anti-Donatist. If this is the most likely interpretation, it may well be that Gennadius would have been unable to identify the work as Rogatianist, simply because of a lack of knowledge. Either way, we have no evidence that would allow the work to be dated before or after the Rogatianist split.17 The interpretation that both works were historical accounts of the schism, albeit highly partisan, is probably influenced by Gennadius’ opening sentence, which states that Tyconius was quite well versed in history. Yet this is a statement about his level of learning, and as Gennadius indicates later on, Tyconius was able to quote ancient synods and may thus have relied on older collections or even historiographical works in composing the Expositiones. Yet it is not a statement about the nature of the two works under discussion. 15

Marcellus, Acts of Carthage 1.47, 3.155, 3.193 Lancel (causa ecclesiae vs causa Caeciliani) and Optatus, Against the Donatist Parmenian 1.24.1 (causa Donati and causa Caeciliani). This excludes the suggestion offered by Pincherle 1925, 447 that the work was exegetical in nature and discussed various scriptural passages. 17 Our interpretation thus differs from that of Hahn 1900, 58, who argues that Tyconius attacked his fellow Donatists in both works and thus wrote as a Rogationist. 16

Bibliography

For editions of ancient works the reader can consult the following reference works: for late antique historiographical texts, CHAP s.v.; for classical texts, M. Landfester, ed., Der neue Pauly, Supplemente 2: Geschichte der antiken Texte: Autoren- und Werklexikon (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2007); for patristic works, M. Geerard et al., Clavis patrum Graecorum, 7 vols. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1983–2018) and E. Dekkers, Clavis patrum Latinorum (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995). Adams, J. N. (1976). The Text and Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus II). London: Institute of Classical Studies. Aiello, V. (2014). La Pars Constantiniana degli Excerpta Valesiana: Introduzione, testo e commento storico (Pelorias 21). Messina: DICAM. Aigner-Foresti, L. (2001). ‘Tages’, Der neue Pauly 11: 1219–20. Alemany, A. (2000). Sources on the Alans: A Critical Compilation (Handbook of Oriental Studies 5). Leiden: Brill. Alföldy, A. (1952). A Conflict of Ideas in the Late Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Almagor, E. and S. Joseph, eds. (2013). Ancient Ethnography: New Approaches. New York: Bloomsbury. Amato, E. (2010). Favorin d’Arles: Œuvres, Vol. III: Fragments (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Amici, A. (2002). Jordanes e la storia gotica. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo. Amitzur, A. (1996). ‘Justinian’s Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem’, in M. Poorthuis and C. Safrai, eds., The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives. Kampen: Kok, 160–75. Amory, P. (1997). People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th Ser. 33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, W. B. (1965). Sidonius: Poems and Letters, with an English Translation (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, MA: Heinemann. Anton, H. H. (1984). ‘Trier im Übergang von der römischen zur fränkischen Herrschaft’, Francia 12: 1–52. (1994). ‘Origo gentis – Volksgeschichte. Zur Auseinandersetzung mit Walter Goffarts Werk “The Narrators of Barbarian History”’, in A. Scharer and G. Scheibelreiter, eds., Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter. Vienna: Oldenbourg, 262–307. 268

Bibliography 269 (2000). ‘Troja-Herkunft, Origo Gentis und frühe Verfasstheit der Franken’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 108: 1–30. Antonopoulos, P. (2016). Early Peril Lost Faith: Italy between Byzantines and Lombards in the Early Years of the Lombard Settlement, AD 568–608. Mauritius: LAP Lambert. Arce, J. (1982). El último siglo de la España romana, 284–409 (Alianza universidad 347). Madrid: Alianza. Arnaud-Lindet, M.-P. (1990). Orose: Histoires contre les païens, 3 vols. (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.  (1994). Festus: Abrégé des hauts faits du peuple romain (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Arnold, J. J. (2014). Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration. New York: Cambridge University Press. Aucher, J.-B. (1818). Eusebii episcopi Caesariensis Chronicon bipartitum, ex Armeniaco textu in Latinum conversum, adnotationibus auctum, Graecis fragmentis exornatum. Venice: Typis coenobii patrum Armenorum in insula S. Lazari. Bachrach, B. S. (1972). Merovingian Military Organization 481–751. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.  (2001). Early Carolingian Warfare: Prelude to Empire (The Middle Ages Series). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bailey, L. (2003). ‘Building Urban Christian Communities: Sermons on Local Saints in the Eusebius Gallicanus Collection’, Early Medieval Europe 12: 1–24. Baldini, A. (1984). Ricerche sulla Storia di Eunapio di Sardi: Problemi di storiografia tardopagana (Studi di storia antica 10). Bologna: Clueb. (2004). Ricerche di tarda storiografia (da Olimpiodoro di Tebe). Bologna: Pàtron. (2005). ‘Considerazioni in tema di Annales e di Historia Augusta’, in G. Bonamente and M. Mayer, eds., Historiae Augustae Colloquium Barcinonense. Bari: Edipuglia, 15–46. (2007). ‘Tra “Historia Augusta” e Storia Romana di Q. Aurelio Memmio Simmaco’, in G. Bonamente and H. Brandt, eds., Historiae Augustae Colloquium Bambergense. Bari: Edipuglia, 9–34. (2009). ‘CIL VI, 1783, 16–17: Plerique meministis (e considerazioni sparse sull’impiego di plerique)’, Antiquité tardive 17: 365–74. Baldini, A. and F. Paschoud. (2014). ‘ΕΥΝΑΠΙΟΥ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ’, in B. Bleckmann and T. Stickler, eds., Griechische Profanhistoriker des fünften nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts (Historia Einzelschriften 228). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 19–50. Baldwin, B. (1981). ‘Sources for the Getica of Jordanes’, Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 59: 141–5.  (1984). ‘The Purpose of the Getica’, in id., Studies on Late Roman and Byzantine History, Literature and Language (London Studies in Classical Philology 12). Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 121–4. Banchich, T. (1986). ‘Eunapius and Jerome’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 27: 319–24.

270

Bibliography

(2007). ‘The Epitomizing Tradition in Late Antiquity’, in J. Marincola, ed., A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 305–11. (2015). The Lost History of Peter the Patrician: An Account of Rome’s Imperial Past from the Age of Justinian (Routledge Classical Translations). London and New York: Routledge. Barnes, T. D. (1970). ‘The Lost Kaisergeschichte and the Latin Historiographical Tradition’, in Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1968/1969 (Antiquitas, Reihe 4: Beiträge zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung 7). Bonn: Habelt, 13–43. (1976). ‘The Epitome de Caesaribus and Its Sources’, Classical Philology 71: 258–68. (1998). Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 56). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (2004). ‘The Historia Augusta, Nicomachus Flavianus, and Peter the Patrician’ [Review of F. Paschoud, Histoire Auguste, Vol. V.2, Vies de Probus, Firmus, Saturnin, Proclus et Bonose, Carus, Numérien et Carin, Collection des Universités de France (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2001)], The Classical Review 54: 120–4. (2009). ‘The First Emperor: The View from Late Antiquity’, in M. Griffin, ed., A Companion to Julius Caesar (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 277–87. Barnish, S. J. B. (1984). ‘The Genesis and Completion of Cassiodorus’ Gothic History’, Latomus 43: 336–61. (1990). ‘Maximian, Cassiodorus, Boethius, Theodahad: Literature, Philosophy and Politics in Ostrogothic Italy’, Nottingham Medieval Studies 34: 16–32. (1992a). Selected Variae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus (Translated Texts for Historians 12). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. (1992b). ‘Old Kaspars: Attila’s Invasion of Gaul in the Literary Sources’, in J. F. Drinkwater and H. Elton, eds., Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 38–49. Bauch, G. (1873). Ueber die Historia Romana des Paulus Diaconus: Eine Quellenuntersuchung. Göttingen: K. A. Huth. Bayless, W. N. (1979). ‘The Chronology of Priscus Fragment 6’, Classical Philology 74: 154–5. Beatrice, P. F. (2001a). Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia: An Attempt at Reconstruction (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 56). Leiden and Boston: Brill. (2001b). ‘De Rufin à Cassiodore. La réception des histoires ecclésiastiques grecques dans l’Occident latin’, in B. Pouderon and Y.-M. Duval, eds., L’historiographie de l’Église des premiers siècles. Paris: Beauchesne, 237–57. Becker, M. and J.-M. Kötter. (2016). Prosper Tiro, Chronik: Laterculus regum Vandalorum et Alanorum (Kleine und fragmentarische Historiker der Spätantike G5–6). Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. Becker, M., B. Bleckmann, J. Gross, and M. A. Nickbakht. (2016). Consularia Constantinopolitana und verwandte Quellen (Kleine und fragmentarische Historiker der Spätantike G1–4). Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.

Bibliography 271 Beisel, F. (1987). Studien zu den fränkisch-römischen Beziehungen: Von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ausgang des 6. Jahrhunderts (Wissenschaftliche Schriften im Wissenschaftlichen Verlag Dr. Schulz-Kirchner 105). Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner. Bell, A. A. (1977). An Historiographical Analysis of the De Excidio Hierosolymitano of Pseudo-Hegesippus. Diss. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (1987). ‘Josephus and Pseudo-Hegesippus’ in L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 349–61. Benericetti, R. (1994). Il pontificale di Ravenna: Studio critico. Faenza: Seminario vescovile Pio XIII. Berndt, G. M. (2007). Konflikt und Anpassung: Studien zu Migration und Ethnogenese der Vandalen. (Historische Studien 489). Husum: Matthiesen. (2008). ‘Gallia – Hispania – Africa: Zu den Migrationen der Vandalen auf ihrem Weg nach Nordafrika’, in G. M. Berndt and R. Steinacher, eds., Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-)Geschichten (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 13). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 131–47. Bethmann, L. (1851). ‘Die Geschichtsschreibung der Langobarden’, Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 10: 335–414. Bethmann, L. and G. Waitz. (1878). Pauli Diaconi Historia Langobardorum (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX). Hannover: Hahn. Bickerman, E. J. (1952). ‘Origines gentium’, Classical Philology 47: 65–81. Bird, H. W. (1984). Sextus Aurelius Victor: A Historiographical Study. Liverpool: Francis Cairns. (1993). The Breviarium Ab Urbe Condita of Eutropius (Translated Texts for Historians 14). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Birley, A. R. (2003). ‘The Historia Augusta and Pagan Historiography’, in G. Marasco, ed., Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century AD. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 127–50. (2005). The Roman Government of Britain. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Bischoff, B. and W. Koehler. (1939). ‘Eine illustrierte Ausgabe der spätantiken Ravennater Annalen’, in W. Koehler, ed., Medieval Studies in Memory of A. Kingsley Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 125–38. Bjornlie, M. S. (2013). Politics and Tradition between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople: A Study of Cassiodorus and the Variae 527–554 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th Ser. 89). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Blaudeau, P. (2006). Alexandrie et Constantinople, 451–491: De L’histoire à la géoecclésiologie (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 327). Rome: École française de Rome. (2016). ‘Narrating Papal Authority (440–530): The Adaptation of Liber Pontificalis to the Apostolic See’s Developing Claims’, in G. D. Dunn, ed., The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 127–40.

272

Bibliography

Bleckmann, B. (1991). ‘Die Chronik des Johannes Zonaras und eine pagane Quelle zur Geschichte Konstantins’, Historia 40: 343–65. (1992). Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und byzanti­ nischen Geschichtsschreibung: Untersuchungen zu den nachdionischen Quellen der Chronik des Johannes Zonaras. Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag. (1995). ‘Bemerkungen zu den Annalen des Nicomachus Flavianus’, Historia 44: 83–94. (1997). ‘Honorius und das Ende der römischen Herrschaft in Westeuropa’, Historische Zeitschrift 265: 561–95. (2004). ‘Der Barbareneinfall von 406 und die Erhebung des Usurpators Constantinus III. Zu einem chronologischen Problem des frühen fünften Jahrhunderts’, in C. Gaudac, ed., Orbis antiquus: Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis. Cluj-Napoca: Cluj-Napoca Nereamia Napocae Press, 41–4. (2007). ‘Vom Tsunami von 365 zum Mimas-Orakel: Ammianus Marcellinus als Zeithistoriker und die spätgriechische Tradition’, in J. den Boeft, J.-W. Drijvers, H. C. Teitler, and D. den Hengst, eds., After Julian: The Reign of Valentinian and Valens in Books 26–31 of the Res Gestae (Mnemosyne Supplements 289). Leiden and Boston: Brill, 7–31. (2009). ‘Fragmente heidnischer Historiographie zum Wirken Julians’, in A. Goltz, H. Leppin, and H. Schlange-Schöningen, eds., Jenseits der Grenzen (Millennium-Studien 25). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 61–77. (2010). ‘Der salmasische Johannes Antiochenus: Ein Versuch zur Bestimmung seines Profils für die Geschichte der Spätantike’, in L. Galli Milic and N. Hecquet-Noti, eds., Historiae Augustae Colloquium Genevense in honorem F. Paschoud septuagenarii. Bari: Edipuglia, 51–61. (2011a). ‘Einige Vergleiche zwischen Ammian und Philostorg: Gallus, die Imitatio Alexandri Julians und die Usurpation Prokops’, in D. Meyer, ed., Philostorge et l’historiographie de l’Antiquité tardive (Collegium Beatus Rhenanus 3). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 79–92. (2011b). ‘Constantinus III’, Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum 28: 454–62. (2015). ‘Last Pagans, Source Criticism and Historiography of Late Antiquity’, Millennium Jahrbuch 12: 103–15. (2018). Eutropius: Breviarium ab urbe condita (Kleine und fragmentarische Historiker der Spätantike B3). Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. Bleckmann, B. and J. Gross. (2016). Historiker der Reichskrise des 3. Jahrhunderts, Vol. I (Kleine und fragmentarische Historiker der Spätantike A 1/4, 6/8). Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. Bleckmann, B., J.-M. Kötter, M. A. Nickbakht, I.-Y. Song, and M. Stein. (2017). Origo gentis Romanorum. Polemius Silvius. Narratio de imperatoribus domus Valentinianae et Theodosianae (Kleine und fragmentarische Historiker der Spätantike B5–7). Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. Bloch, H. (1963). ‘The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century’, in A. Momigliano, ed., The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 193–218.

Bibliography 273 Blockley, R. C. (1981). The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus (ARCA 10). Liverpool: Cairns. (1983). The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, Vol. II: Text, Translation and Historiographical Notes (ARCA 10). Liverpool: Cairns. (1998). ‘Ammianus and Cicero: The Epilogue of the “History” as a Literary Statement’, Phoenix 52: 305–14. (2001). ‘Ammianus and Cicero on Truth in Historiography’, Ancient History Bulletin 15: 14–24. Blondus, F. (1483). Historiarum ab inclinatione Romanorum imperii decades. Venice: Octavianus Scotus. Boer, W. den. (1972). Some Minor Roman Historians. Leiden: Brill. Bognetti, G. P. (1967). ‘Processo logico e integrazione delle fonti nella storiografia di Paolo Diacono’, in id., ed., L’età langobarda, Vol. III. Milan: Giuffré, 357–81. Bonamente, G. (1979). ‘Sulla storiografia pagana post-giulianea’, Cultura e Scuola 70: 69–82. (2003). ‘Minor Latin Historians of the Fourth Century AD’, in G. Marasco, ed., Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century AD. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 85–125. Boone, W. J. de. (1954). De Franken: Van hun eerste optreden tot de dood van Childerijk. Diss. Amsterdam. Börm, H. (2013). Westrom: Von Honorius bis Justinian (Kohlhammer-UrbanTaschenbücher 735). Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Borri, F. (2014). ‘Romans Growing Beards: Identity and Historiography in Seventh-Century Italy’, Viator 45: 39–71. Boullón Agrelo, A. I. (1999). Antroponimia medieval galega (ss. VIII–XII) (Patronymica Romanica 12). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bovini, G. (1957). ‘Massimiano di Pola, arcivescovo di Ravenna’, Felix Ravenna 74: 5–27. Braccesi, L. (1997). La leggenda di Antenore: Dalla Troade al Veneto. Venice: Marsilio. (2006). L’Alessandro occidentale: Il Macedone e Roma (Problemi e ricerche di storia antica 24). Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Bradley, D. (1966). ‘The Composition of the Getica’, Eranos 64: 67–79. (1993). ‘“In altum laxare vela compulsus”: The Getica of Jordanes’, Hermes 121: 211–36. Briquel, D. (2004–7). ‘Tages against Jesus: Etruscan Religion in the Late Roman Empire’, Etruscan Studies 10: 153–61. (2005). ‘L’“Origo gentis Romanae’’’, Etrusca disciplina 9: 56–62. Bronisch, A. P. (1998). Reconquista und heiliger Krieg: Die Deutung des Krieges im christlichen Spanien von den Westgoten bis ins frühe 12. Jahrhundert (Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft Reihe 2, 35). Münster: Aschendorff.

274

Bibliography

(2005). ‘Die westgotische Reichsideologie und ihre Weiterentwicklung im Reich von Asturien’, in F.-R. Erkens, ed., Das frühmittelalterliche Königtum: Ideelle und religiöse Grundlagen (Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 49). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 161–89. Brooks, E. W. (1903). ‘The Dates of the Alexandrine Patriarchs Dioskoros II, Timothy IV and Theodosius’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12: 494–7. (1904). Chronica minora, Vol. II (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 3, Scriptores Syri 3). Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO. Bruggisser, P. (2012). ‘L’antiquité à tout prix? Réflexions sur les Saturnales de Macrobe’, Antiquité tardive 20: 241–54. Brunt, P. A. (1980). ‘On Historical Fragments and Epitomes’, The Classical Quarterly 30: 477–94. Buchholz, P. (1882). Die Quellen der Historiarum Decades des Flavius Blondus. Naumburg: Sieling. Buchner, R. (1955). Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis Historiarum libri decem. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Bullough, D. (1986). ‘Ethnic History and the Carolingians. An Alternative Reading of Paul the Deacon’s Historia Langobardorum’, in C. Holdsworth and T. P. Wiseman, eds., The Inheritance of Historiography, 350–900. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 85–105. Buonomo, L. M. (1997). ‘Introduzione alla lettura delle opere di Giordano’, in M. L. Silvestre and M. Squillante, eds., Mutatio rerum: Letterature, filosofia, scienza tra tardo antico e altomedioevo. Naples: La Città del Sole, 115–69. Burgess, R. W. (1993). The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana (Oxford Classical Monographs). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1999). Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography (Historia Einzelschriften 135). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. (2013). ‘The Date, Purpose, and Historical Context of the Original Greek and the Latin Translation of the So-Called Excerpta Latina Barbari’, Traditio 68: 1–56. (2014). Roman Imperial Chronology and Early-Fourth-Century Historiography: The Regnal Durations of the So-Called ‘Chronica Urbis Romae’ of the ‘Chronograph of 354’ (Historia Einzelschriften 234). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Burgess, R. W. and M. Kulikowski. (2013a). Mosaics of Time: The Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD, Vol. I: A Historical Introduction to the Chronicle Genre from Its Origins to the High Middle Ages (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 33). Turnhout: Brepols. (2013b). ‘Medieval Historiographical Terminology: The Meaning of the Word Annales’, in E. Kooper and S. Levelt, eds., The Medieval Chronicle VIII. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 165–92. Bürsgens, W. (2003). Cassiodorus: Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum. Einführung in die geistlichen und weltlichen Wissenschaften (Fontes Christiani 39). Freiburg and New York: Herder.

Bibliography 275 Callu, J.-P. (1974). ‘Les préfectures de Nicomaque Flavien’, in Mélanges d’histoire ancienne offerts à William Seston (Publications de la Sorbonne, Série Etudes 9). Paris: De Boccard, 73–80. (1975). ‘Les Constitutions d’Aristote et leur fortune au Bas-Empire’, Revue des Études Latines 53: 268–315. (1982). Symmaque: Lettres, Vol. II: Livres III–V (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (1985). ‘La première diffusion de l’Histoire Auguste’, in Bonner HistoriaAugusta-Colloquium 1982/1983 (Antiquitas, Reihe 4: Beiträge zur HistoriaAugusta-Forschung 17). Bonn: Habelt, 89–129. (1987). ‘Le “De bello Iudaico” du Pseudo-Hégésippe: Essai de datation’, in Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1984/1985. Bonn: Habelt, 117–42. (1992). Histoire Auguste. Introduction générale. Vies d’Hadrien, Aelius, Antonin (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (1999). ‘En amont de l’Histoire Auguste 357–387’, in F. Paschoud, ed., Historiae Augustae Colloquium Genevense II (Historiae Augustae Colloquia, N.S. 7). Bari: Edipuglia, 87–107. (2002). Symmaque: Lettres, Vol. IV: Livres IX–X (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Callu, J.-P. and M. Festy. (2010). ‘Alternatives historiennes: De l’Historia Alexandri à l’Historia Augusta’, in L. Galli Milic and N. Hecquet-Noti, eds., Historiae Augustae Colloquium Genevense in honorem F. Paschoud septuagenarii (Historiae Augustae Colloquia, N.S. 11). Bari: Edipuglia, 117–33. Callu, J.-P., O. Desbordes, and C. Bertrand. (1984–5). ‘L’Histoire auguste et l’historiographie médiévale’, Revue d’Histoire des Textes 14–15: 97–130. Cameron, A. (1964). ‘The Roman Friends of Ammianus’, The Journal of Roman Studies 54: 15–28. (2011). The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. (2012a). ‘Anician Myths’, The Journal of Roman Studies 102: 133–71. (2012b). ‘Nicomachus Flavianus and the Date of Ammianus’s Last Books’, Athenaeum 100: 337–58. Canfora, L. (1987). ‘Per una storia del corpus Sallustianum’, in S. Boldrini, ed., Filologia e forme letterarie: Studi offerti a Francesco della Corte, Vol. II. Urbino: Università di Urbino, 377–98. Capo, L. (1992). Paolo Diacono: Storia dei Longobardi. Rome and Milan: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla and Mondadori. Cappuyns, D. M. (1939). ‘Cassiodore’, Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques 11: 1349–408. Cardelle de Hartmann, C. (2001). Victoris Tunnunensis Chronicon cum reliquiis ex Consularibus Caesaraugustanis et Iohannis Biclarensis Chronicon (CCSL 173 A). Turnhout: Brepols. Carlà-Uhink, F. (2017). The ‘Birth’ of Italy: The Institutionalization of Italy as a Region, 3rd–1st Century BCE (Klio: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte Beihefte, N.F. 28). Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

276

Bibliography

Carriker, A. (1999). ‘Seven Unidentified Sources in Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica’, in D. Kries and C. Tkacz, eds., Nova Doctrina Vetusque: Essays on Early Christianity in Honor of Fredric W. Schlatter, S.J. New York: Peter Lang, 79–92. (2003). The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 67). Leiden and Boston: Brill. Castritius, H. (2003). ‘Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 23: 507–8. (2005a). ‘Sulpicius Alexander’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 30: 129. (2005b). ‘Sunno’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 30: 134–6. Cecconi, G. A. (2002). Commento storico al libro II dell’epistolario di Q. A. Simmaco. Pisa: Giardini. (2013). ‘Alan Cameron’s Virius Nicomachus Flavianus’, in R. Lizzi Testa, ed., The Strange Death of Pagan Rome (Giornale italiano di filologia: Bibliotheca 16). Turnhout: Brepols, 151–64. Ceresa-Gastaldo, A. (1988). Gerolamo: Gli uomini illustri / De viris illustribus (Biblioteca patristica 12). Florence: Nardini. (1995). ‘Gerolamo e la biografia letteraria cristiana’, in I. Gallo and L. Nicastri, eds., Biografia e autobiografia degli antichi e dei moderni. Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 137–47. Cervani, R. (1986). ‘La fonte tridentina della “Historia Langobardorum” di Paolo Diacono’, Atti dell’Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati 236: 97–103. Cesa, M. (1994). Impero tardoantico e barbari: La crisi militare da Adrianopoli al 418 (Biblioteca di Athenaeum 23). Como: Edizioni New Press. Cessi, R. (1913). Fragmenta historica ab Henrico et Hadriano Valesio, primum edita (Anonymus Valesianus). Città di Castello: Tipi della Casa editrice S. Lapi. Chabot, J. B. (1899). Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199), Vol. I. Paris: Leroux. (1904). Chronica minora, Vol. II (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 4, Scriptores Syri 4). Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO. (1910). Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199), Vol. IV. Paris: Leroux. Chaniotis, A. (1988). Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften: Epigraphische Beiträge zur griechischen Historiographie  (Heidelberger  al­­­t­ historische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 4). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Chastagnol, A. (1962). Les fastes de la préfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire. Paris: Nouvelles Éditions Latines. (1985). ‘Autour du thème du princeps clausus’, in Bonner Historia-AugustaColloquium 1982/1983 (Antiquitas, Reihe 4: Beiträge zur Historia-AugustaForschung 17). Bonn: Habelt, 149–61. Chiai, G. F. (2013). ‘Die Ortsgebundenheit des Göttlichen bei Macrobius’, in A. Fürst et al., eds., Monotheistische Denkfiguren in der Spätantike. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 215–42.

Bibliography 277 Chiesa, P. and L. Castaldi, eds. (2004). La trasmissione dei testi latini del Medioevo: Mediaeval Latin Texts and Their Transmission, Vol. I (Millennio medievale 50). Florence: SISMEL. Christensen, A. S. (2002). Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a Migration Myth. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Christie, N. (1995). The Lombards: The Ancient Longobards (The Peoples of Europe). Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Cipolla, C. (1892). ‘Considerazione sulle Getica di Jordanes et sulle loro relazioni colla Historia Getarum di Cassiodoro Senatore’, Memorie della R. Accad. di Torino 2nd ser. 43: 99–134. (1893). ‘Ricerche intorno all’anonymus Valesianus II’, Bulletino dell’istituto storico italiano 13: 7–98. Clarke, K. (2008). Making Time for the Past: Local History and the Polis. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Claude, D. (1970). Geschichte der Westgoten. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. (1971). Adel, Kirche und Königtum im Westgotenreich. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag. Clover, F. M. (1971). ‘Flavius Merobaudes. A Translation and Historical Commentary’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 61: 1–74. (1973). ‘Geiseric and Attila’, Historia 22: 104–17. Codoñer Merino, C. (1964). El ‘De viris illustribus’ de Isidoro de Sevilla (Theses et studia philologica Salmanticensia 12). Salamanca: CSIC. Cohen, S. (2016). ‘Religious Diversity’, in J. J. Arnold, S. Bjornlie, and K. Sessa, eds., A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 503–32. Collins, R. (1994). ‘Isidore, Maximus, and the Historia Gallorum’, in A. Scharer and G. Scheibelreiter, eds., Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter. Vienna: Oldenbourg Verlag, 345–58. (2004). Visigothic Spain, 409–711. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Consolino, F. E. (2013). ‘Macrobius’ Saturnalia and the Carmen contra Paganos’, in R. Lizzi Testa, ed., The Strange Death of Pagan Rome (Giornale italiano di filologia: Bibliotheca 16). Turnhout: Brepols: 85–108. Conterno, M. (2014). La ‘descrizione dei tempi’ all’alba dell’espasione islamica (Millennium-Studien 47). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Conterno, M. and L. Van Hoof, eds. (forthcoming). Rhetoric and Historiography in Late Antiquity. Cook, A. B. (1925). Zeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornell, T. J., ed. (2013). The Fragments of the Roman Historians, 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coskun, A. (2002). ‘Die sogenannten “Fasti” und der “Consularis liber” des Ausonius: Mit einem Exkurs zur Karriere des Proculus Gregorius’, Philologus 146: 350–9. (2004). ‘Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, der Praefectus und Consul des “Carmen contra paganos’’’, Vigiliae Christianae 58: 152–78.

278

Bibliography

Coumert, M. (2007). Origines des peuples: Les récits du Haut Moyen Âge occidental (550–850) (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Moyen Âge et Temps modernes 42). Paris: Institut des Études Augustiniennes. Courcelle, P. (1948). Les lettres grecques en Occident de Macrobe à Cassiodore. Paris: De Boccard. (1964). Histoire littéraire des grandes invasions germaniques. Paris: Études Augustiniennes. Courtney, E. (2003). The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Courtois, C. (1955). Les Vandales et l’Afrique. Paris: Arts et métiers graphiques. (1956). ‘Rapports entre Wisigoths et Vandales’, in I Goti in occidente (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 3). Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 499–508. Cracco Ruggini, L. (1979). ‘Il paganesimo romano tra religione e politica (384– 394 d.C.): Per una reinterpretazione del Carmen contra paganos’, Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei: Memorie, Classe di Scienze morale, storiche e filologiche 8th ser. 23: 1–141. (1986). ‘Simmaco: Otia et negotia di classe fra conservazione e rinnovamento’, in G. W. Bowersock, A. Pabst, and F. Paschoud, eds., Colloque Genevois sur Symmaque: À l’occasion du mille six centième anniversaire du conflit de l’autel de la Victoire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 97–118. Croke, B. (1976). ‘Arbogast and the Death of Valentinian’, Historia 25: 235–44. (1983). ‘476: The Manufacturing of a Turning Point’, Chiron 13: 81–119. (1984). ‘Marcellinus on Dara: A Fragment of His Lost De temporum qualitatibus et positionibus locorum’, Phoenix 37: 77–88. (1987). ‘Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes’, Classical Philology 82: 117–34. (1995). The Chronicle of Marcellinus: A Translation with Commentary (Byzantina Australiensia 7). Sydney: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies. (2001a). Count Marcellinus and His Chronicle. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. (2001b). ‘Chronicles, Annals and “Consular Annals” in Late Antiquity’, Chiron 31: 291–331. (2003). ‘Latin Historiography and the Barbarian Kingdoms’, in G. Marasco, ed., Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century AD. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 349–90. (2005). ‘Jordanes and the Immediate Past’, Historia 54: 473–94. (2012). ‘Historiography’, in S. F. Johnson, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 405–36. Croke, B. and J. Crow. (1983). ‘Procopius and Dara’, The Journal of Roman Studies 73: 143–59. D’Achery, L. and J. Mabillon. (1668). Acta Sanctorum ordinis S. benedicti in saeculorum classes distributa, Vol. I. Paris: Louis Billaine. Dalton, O. M. (1927). Gregory of Tours: History of the Franks. Oxford: Clarendon Press. De Cicco, P. (2013–14). ‘L’historien Eusèbe de Nantes (?): Nouvelles perspectives’, Revue des Études Tardo-Antiques 3: 211–42.

Bibliography 279 (2018). ‘L’historien Eusèbe de Nantes (?): édition des fragments’, in E. Amato, P. De Cicco, and T. Moreau, eds., Canistrum ficis plenum: Hommages à Bertrand Lançon (Revue des Études Tardo-Antiques Supplément 2), 97–130. De Grummond, N. T. (2006). ‘Prophets and Priests’, in N. T. De Grummond and E. Simon, eds., The Religion of the Etruscans. Austin: University of Texas Press, 27–44. de Melo, W. (2011). Plautus, Vol. V, Stichus, Three-Dollar Day, Truculentus, The Tale of a Traveling-Bag, Fragments (Loeb Classical Library 328). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Debié, M. (2015). L’Écriture de l’histoire en syriaque: Transmissions interculturelles et constructions identitaires entre hellénisme et Islam (Late Antique History and Religion 12). Leuven: Peeters. Deichmann, F. W. (1969). Ravenna: Hauptstadt des spaetantiken Abendlandes, Vol. I: Geschichte und Monumente. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Delacenserie, E. (2016). L’‘Histoire ecclésiastique’ de Socrate de Constantinople: Banque de données et autorité historiographiques pour la création d’oeuvres originales au VIe s. (Théodore le Lecteur, Cassiodore, la première version arménienne). Diss. Ghent and Angers. Delaplace, C. (2008). ‘Les Wisigoths en Septimanie d’après les sources écrites’, in El tiempo de los ‘bárbaros’: Pervivencia y transformación en Galia e Hispania (ss. V–VI d.C.) (Zona arqueológica 11). Alcalá de Henares: Museo arqueológico regional, 87–95. (2015). La fin de l’Empire romain d’Occident: Rome et les Wisigoths de 382 à 531 (Collection Histoire). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Deliyannis, D. M. (2001). ‘Year-Dates in the Early Middle Ages’, in C. Humphrey and W. M. Ormrod, eds., Time in the Medieval World. Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 3–22. (2004). Agnellus: The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna (Medieval Texts in Translation). Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. (2006). Agnelli Ravennatis Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 199). Turnhout: Brepols. (2009). ‘The Liber Pontificalis of the Church of Ravenna: Its Relation with Its Roman Model’, in F. Bougard and M. Sot, eds., Liber, gesta, histoire: Écrire l’histoire des évêques et des papes, de l’Antiquité au XXIe siècle. Turnhout: Brepols, 283–97. (2010). Ravenna in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2014). ‘The Roman Liber Pontificalis, Papal Primacy, and the Acacian Schism’, Viator 45: 1–16. Demandt, A. (1970). ‘Magister militum’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften Supplement 12: 553–790. (1980). ‘Die Anfänge der Staatenbildung bei den Germanen’, Historische Zeitschrift 230: 265–91. (1982). ‘Geschichte in der spätantiken Gesellschaft’, Gymnasium 89: 255–72. Demougeot, E. (1966). ‘La Gaule nord-orientale à la veille de la grand invasion germanique de 407’, Revue historique 226: 17–46.

280

Bibliography

(1974). ‘Constantin III, l’empereur d’Arles’, in Hommage à André Dupont (1897– 1972): Études médiévales languedociennes offertes en hommage par ses anciens collègues, élèves et amis. Montpellier: Fédération historique du Languedoc méditerranéen et du Roussillon, 83–125. (1979). La formation de l’Europe et les invasions barbares, Vol. II.2: De l’avènement de Dioclétien (284) à l’occupation germanique de l’Empire romain d’Occident (début du VIe siècle) (Collection historique). Paris: Aubier. (1988). L’empire romain et les barbares: Scripta varia. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Di Berardino, A. (1994). Patrology, Vol. IV. Westminster: Westminster Christian Classics. Di Berardino, A., G. Pilara, and L. Spera. (2012). Roma e il sacco del 410: Realtà, interpretazione, mito (Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 131). Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum. Dierkens, A. (2018). ‘Silva carbonaria’, Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity 2: 1384. Dillery, J. (2015). Clio’s Other Sons: Berossus and Manetho; With an Afterword on Demetrius. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Dindorf, L. (1829). Georgius Syncellus et Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae). Bonn: E. Weber. (1832). Chronicon Paschale (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae). Bonn: E. Weber. Drinkwater, J. F. (1998). ‘The Usurpers Constantine III (407–411) and Jovinus (411–413)’, Britannia 29: 269–98. (2007). The Alamanni and Rome 213–496 (Caracalla to Clovis). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Dubuisson, M. and J. Schamp. (2006). Jean de Lydie: Des magistratures de l’état romain, 3 vols. (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Dumville, D. N. (1973). ‘A New Chronicle Fragment of Early Briton History’, English Historical Review 88: 312–14. (1975–6). ‘Nennius and the “Historia Brittonum”’, Studia Celtica 10–11: 78–95. Duval, Y.-M. (1983). ‘Les métamorphoses de l’historiographie au IVe et Ve siècles’, in Renaissance, fin ou permanence de l’Empire romain (Actes du VIIe congrès de la Fédération internationale des Associations d’Études classiques). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiado, 137–82. Ehling, K. (1996). ‘Zur Geschichte Constantins III’, Francia 23: 1–11. Eigler, U. (2003). Lectiones vetustatis: Römische Literatur und Geschichte in der lateinischen Literatur der Spätantike (Zetemata 115). Munich: Beck. (2013). ‘Gallien als Literaturlandschaft: Zur Dezentralisierung und Differenzierung lateinischer Literatur im 5. und 6. Jh.’, in S. Diefenbach and M. Müller, eds., Gallien in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter: Kulturgeschichte einer Region (Millenium-Studien 43). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 399–420. Elton, H. (1992). ‘Defence in Fifth-Century Gaul’, in J. F. Drinkwater and H. Elton, eds., Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 167–76.

Bibliography 281 Enmann, A. (1884). Eine verlorene Geschichte der römischen Kaiser und das Buch De viris illustribus urbis Romae (Philologus Supplementband 4.3). Leipzig: Dieterich, 337–501. Ensslin, W. (1923). Zur Geschichtsschreibung und Weltanschauung des Ammianus Marcellinus. Aalen: Scientia. (1926). ‘Zur Gründungsgeschichte von Dara-Anastasiopolis’, Byzantinischneugriechische Jahrbücher 5: 342–7. (1949). Des Symmachus Historia Romana als Quelle für Jordanes (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Jahrgang 1948:3). Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. (1956). ‘Beweise der Romverbandheit in Theoderichs des Grossen Aussenund Innenpolitik’, in I Goti in Occidente: Problemi, 29 marzo–5 aprile 1955 (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 3). Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 509–36. Errington, R. M. (1992). ‘The Praetorian Prefectures of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus’, Historia 42: 439–61. (2006). Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius (Studies in the History of Greece and Rome). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Etienne, R. (1962). Bordeaux antique. Bordeaux: Fédération historique du Sud-Ouest. Evelyn-White, H. G. (1919). Ausonius, Vol. I: Books 1–17 (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, MA: Heinemann. Everett, N. (2003). Literacy in Lombard Italy, c. 568–774 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser. 53). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Ewig, E. (1974). ‘Probleme der fränkischen Frühgeschichte in den Rheinlanden’, in Historische Forschungen für Walter Schlesinger. Vienna and Cologne: Böhlau, 47–78. (2009). ‘Die Franken und Rom’, in H. Atsma, ed., Eugen Ewig: Spätantikes und fränkisches Gallien (Gesammelte Schriften 3). Munich: Artemis, 121–62. Falcone, G. (1993). ‘Gli antroponimi gotici nelle fonti dei secoli III–VI d.C. Gli antroponimi gotici nelle Variae di Cassiodoro. I riflessi dell’antroponimia germanica nell’Italia meridionale e in Calabria’, in S. Leanza, ed., Cassiodoro: Dalla corte di Ravenna al Vivarium di Squillace; Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studi – Squillace, 25–27 ottobre 1990 (Bibliotheca vivariensis 2). Messina: Rubbettino, 233–318. Fanning, S. (2011). ‘Reguli in the Roman Empire, Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval Germanic Kingdoms’, in R. Mathisen and D. Shanzer, eds., Romans, Barbarians and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity. Farnham: Ashgate, 43–53. Fasoli, G. (1970). ‘Rileggendo il “liber pontificalis” di Agnello Ravennate’, in La storiografia altomedievale, 10–16 aprile 1969 (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 17). Spoleto: Presso la sede del centro, 457–95.

282

Bibliography

Fear, A. (2010). Orosius: Seven Books of History against the Pagans (Translated Texts for Historians 54). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Festy, M. (1995). ‘Le début et la fin des Annales de Nicomaque Flavien’, Historia 46: 465–78. (1999). Pseudo-Aurélius Victor: Abrégé des Césars (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (2001). ‘Aurélius Victor, source de l’« Histoire Auguste » et de Nicomaque Flavien’, in F. Paschoud and G. Bonamente, eds., Historiae Augustae Colloquium Genevense. Bari: Edipuglia, 121–33. (2003). ‘De l’Epitome de Caesaribus à la chronique de Marcellin: L’histoire romaine de Symmaque le Jeune’, Historia 52: 251–5. (2004). ‘Les Nicomaques, auteurs de l’Histoire Auguste. La jalousie des méchants’, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, 757–67. (2014). ‘Autour de l’historia romana de Symmaque le Jeune’, in C. BertrandDagenbach and F. Chausson, eds., Historiae Augustae Colloquium Nanceiense (Atti dei convegni sulla Historiae Augustae 12). Bari: Edipuglia, 243–64. Février, P.-A. and X. Barral i Altet. (1989). Topographie chrétienne des cités de la Gaule des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle, Vol. VII: Province ecclésiastique de Narbonne (Narbonesis prima). Paris: De Boccard. Finaert, G. and Y.-M. Congar. (1963). Traités anti-donatistes, Vol. I (Oeuvres de Saint Augustin 28). Paris: Institut des Études Augustiniennes. Focanti, L. (2018). The Fragments of Late Antique Patria. Diss. Ghent and Groningen. Fogel, J., B. Ivanyi, and L. Juhasz. (1936–76). Antonii de Bonfinis Rerum Ungaricum decades, 4 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Fontaine, J. (2000). Isidore de Séville: Genèse et orginalité de la culture hispanique au temps des Wisigoths (Témoins de notre histoire). Turnhout: Brepols. Fowden, G. (1994). ‘The Last Days of Constantine: Oppositional Versions and Their Influence’, The Journal of Roman Studies 84: 146–70. Francovich Onesti, N. (2007). I nomi degli Ostrogoti. Florence: Firenze University Press. Frateantonio, L. (1998). ‘Granius Flaccus’, Der neue Pauly 4: 1205. Frederiksen, P. (1991). ‘Apocalypse and Redemption in Early Christianity from John of Patmos to Augustine of Hippo’, Vigiliae Christianae 45: 151–83. (2007). ‘Tyconius’, Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/ biography/Tyconius. Frend, W. H. C. (1952). The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa. Oxford: Clarendon. Frick, K. (1892). Chronica minora. Leipzig: Teubner. Fridh, Å. J. (1973). Magni Aurelii Cassiodori Senatoris opera (CCSL 96). Turnhout: Brepols. Funaioli, G. (1912). ‘Granius Flaccus und Granius Licinianus’, RE 7: 1819–22. Gaillard-Seux, P. (2015). ‘Portraits d’empereurs dans l’Histoire Auguste: De l’empereur en animal à l’image de Typhon’, in P. Blaudeau and P. Van Nuffelen, eds., Historiographie tardo-antique et transmission des savoirs (Millennium-Studien 55). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 259–81.

Bibliography 283 Galdi, G. (2013). Syntaktische Untersuchungen zu Jordanes: Beiträge zu den Romana (Spudasmata 150). Hildesheim: Olms. Galonnier, A. (1996). ‘Anecdoton Holderi ou Ordo generis Cassiodororum. Introduction, édition, traduction et commentaire’, Antiquité tardive 4: 299–312. Gardiner, K. (1983). ‘Paul the Deacon and Secundus of Trento’, in B. Croke and A. Emmett, eds., History and Historians in Late Antiquity. Sydney: Pergamon Press, 147–53. Garstad, B. (2004). ‘The “Excerpta Latina Barbari” and the “Picus–Zeus Narrative”’, Jahrbuch für internationale Germanistik 34: 259–313. (2005). ‘The Tyche Sacrifice in John Malalas: Virgin Sacrifice and FourthCentury Polemical History’, Illinois Classical Studies 30: 87–93. (2014). ‘The Account of Thoulis, King of Egypt in John Malalas’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 107: 51–75. (2016a). ‘Euhemerus and the Chronicle of John Malalas’, The International History Review 38: 900–29. (2016b). ‘Authari in Paul the Deacon’s Historia Langobardorum, Secundus of Trent, and the Alexander Tradition in Early Lombard Italy’, Journal of Late Antiquity 9: 218–66. (2018). ‘Alexander the Great’s Liberation of Rome and an Idiosyncratic Model of World History in the Chronicle of John Malalas, the Excerpta Latina Barbari, and Fulgentius’ De aetatibus’, Wiener Studien 131: 179–205. Gärtner, H. (1973). ‘Ablabius’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 1: 40. Gascou, J. (1976). ‘L’institution des bucellaires’, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 76: 143–56. Gassman, M. (2017). ‘The Roman Kings in Orosius’ Historiae adversus paganos’, The Classical Quarterly 67: 617–30. Geary, P. J. (1988). Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Gelzer, H. (1885). Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronologie. Leipzig: Teubner. Geva, H. and O. Gutfeld. (2012). Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Ghilardi, M. and G. Pilari, eds. (2010). I barbari que presero Roma: Il sacco del 410 e le sue consequenze. Rome: Augustinianum. Ghosh, S. (2016). Writing the Barbarian Past: Studies in Early Medieval Historical Narrative (Brill’s Series on the Early Middle Ages 24). Leiden: Brill. Giardina, A. (2006). Cassiodoro politico (Saggi di storia antica 27). Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Giglio, S. (2007). ‘Il munus della pretura a Roma e a Costantinopoli nel corso del tardo impero romano’, Antiquité tardive 15: 65–88. Gillett, A. (2000). ‘Jordanes and Ablabius’, in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 10 (Collection Latomus 254). Brussels: Latomus, 479–500.

284

Bibliography

Gillett, A., ed. (2002). On Barbarian Identity: Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 4). Turnhout: Brepols. Giordano, O. (1973). Jordanes e la storiografia del VI secolo. Bari: Adriatica. Girotti, B. (2009). Ricerche sui Romana di Jordanes (Studi di storia 15). Bologna: Pàtron. (2015). ‘Nicomaco Flaviano, historicus dissertissimus’, Hermes 143: 124–8. (2017). ‘Spunti storiografici nella panegiristica tardoantica tra realtà e deformazione: Indizi dalla testimonianza di Sidonio Apollinare’, in V. Neri and B. Girotti, eds., La storiografia tardoantica: Bilanci e prospettive. Milan: LED, 181–99. Giunta, F. and A. Grillone. (1991). Iordanis De origine actibusque Getarum (Fonti per la storia d’Italia 117). Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il medioevo. Goffart, W. (1980). Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418–584: The Techniques of Accommodation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (1988). The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550–800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede and Paul the Deacon. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (2006). Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire (The Middle Ages Series). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goldlust, B. (2010). Rhétorique et poétique de Macrobe dans les Saturnales. Turnhout: Brepols. Goltz, A. (2008). Barbar, König, Tyrann: Das Bild Theoderichs des Grossen in der Überlieferung des 5. bis 9. Jahrhunderts (Millennium-Studien 12). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Graham, S. L. (2008). ‘Justinian and the Politics of Space’, in J. L. Berquist and C. V. Camp, eds., Constructions of Space II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces. New York: T&T Clark, 53–77. (2010). ‘“I Have Bested You, Solomon”: Justinian and the Old Testament’, Studia Patristica 48: 153–7. Green, R. P. H. (1985). ‘Still Waters Run Deep: A New Study of the Professores of Bordeaux’, The Classical Quarterly 31: 491–506. (1991). The Works of Ausonius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1999). ‘Ausonius’ Fasti and Caesares Revisited’, The Classical Quarterly 49: 573–8. Grillone, A. (2017). Iordanes: Getica (Auteurs latins du Moyen Âge). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Grossi, V. and R. Ronzani, eds. (2010). Goti, Romani, Christiani e la caduta di Roma del 410 in dialogo con Agostino d’Ippona. Rome: Centro culturale agostiniano. Grünewald, T. (1992). ‘Der letzte Kampf des Heidentums in Rom? Zur postumen Rehabilitation des Virius Nicomachus Flavianus’, Historia 41: 471–3. Gryson, R. (2011a). Tyconii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 107, A). Turnhout: Brepols. (2011b). Tyconius: Commentaire de l’Apocalypse (Corpus Christianorum in Translation 10). Turnhout: Brepols. Guillaumont, F. (2013). ‘Proclus, Jean le Lydien et le mythe de Tagès’, in B. Poulle, ed., La divination dans le monde étrusco-italique 10: L’Etrusca disciplina au

Bibliography 285 Ve siècle apr. J.-C.; Actes du colloque de Besançon, 23–24 mai 2013. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté, 61–73. Gusso, M. (1995). ‘Contributi allo studio della composizione e delle fonti del Chronicon di Marcellinus Comes’, Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 61: 557–622. Gutschmid, A. von. (1894). ‘Zu Jordanis’, in Kleine Schriften, Vol. V: Schriften zur römischen und mittelalterlichen Geschichte und Literatur. Leipzig: Teubner, 288–336. Haack, M.-L. (2003). ‘Puer senex’, in B. Bakhouche, ed., L’ancienneté chez les anciens. Montpellier: Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier III, 373–81. ter Haar Romeny, Bas. (2012). ‘Ethnicity, Ethnogenesis and the Identity of Syriac Orthodox Christians’, in W. Pohl, C. Gantner, and R. Payne, eds., Visions of Community in the Post-Roman World: The West, Byzantium and the Islamic World 300–1100. Farnham: Ashgate, 183–204. Haas, C. (1997). Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict (Ancient Society and History). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hachmann, R. (1970). Die Goten und Skandinavien (Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprache und Kulturgeschichte der germanischen Völker, N.F. 34). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hahn, T. (1900). Tyconius-Studien. Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Halporn, J. W. and M. Vessey. (2003). Cassiodorus: Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning and On the Soul (Translated Texts for Historians 42). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Halsall, G. (2007). Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376–568 (Cambridge Medieval Textbooks). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halton, T. P. (1999). Saint Jerome: On Illustrious Men (The Fathers of the Church 100). Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. Hammer, C. I. (2011). ‘Early Merovingian Bavaria: A Late Antique Italian Perspective’, Journal of Late Antiquity 4: 217–44. (2014). ‘“De Gestis Langobardorum”, Queen Theodelinda and Langobard Royal Tradition’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 48: 237–59. Hansen, G. C. (1983). ‘Sulpicius Alexander: Ein Historiker nach Ammian’, in H. Scheel, ed., Rom und Germanien: Dem Wirken Werner Hartkes gewidmet (Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften, DDR: Gesellschaftswissenschaften). Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 89–91. Hanslik, R. (1971). ‘Epiphanius Scholasticus oder Cassiodor? Zur Historia ecclesiastica tripartita’, Philologus 115: 107–13. Hanslik, R. and W. Jacob. (1952). Cassiodori-Epiphanii Historia ecclesiastica tripartita: Historiae ecclesiasticae ex Socrate Sozomeno et Theodorito in unum collectae et nuper de Graeco in Latinum translatae libri numero duodecim (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 71). Vienna: Tempsky. Harding, P. E. (2007). ‘Local History and Atthidography’, in J. Marincola, ed., A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 180–8.

286

Bibliography

Harich-Schwarzbauer, H. and K. Pollmann, eds. (2013). Der Fall Roms und seine Wiederauferstehungen in Antike und Mittelalter (Millennium-Studien 40). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hartke, W. (1940). Geschichte und Politik im spätantiken Rom: Untersuchungen über die Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Leipzig: Dieterich. (1950). ‘Review of W. Ensslin, Des Symmachus Historia Romana als Quelle für Jordanes’, Gnomon 22: 414–15. (1951). Römische Kinderkaiser: Eine Strukturanalyse römischen Denkens und Daseins. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Hartmann, U. (2014). ‘“… Und die pronoia hat die Menschen noch nicht verlassen”: Die Konstruktion der Geistesgeschichte als pagane Gegenwelten in Eunaps’ Philosophenviten’, in B. Bleckmann and T. Stickler, eds., Griechische Profanhistoriker des fünften nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts (Historia Einzelschriften 228). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 51–84. Havaux, M. (2017). ‘Théodose II, Constantinople et l’Empire: Une nouvelle lecture de la Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae’, Revue historique 681: 3–54. Haveling, G. (1990). ‘Symmachus and Greek Literature’, in S.-T. Teodorsson, ed., Greek and Latin Studies in Memory of Cajus Fabricius (Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis: Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 54). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 188–205. Heather, P. (1989). ‘Cassiodorus and the Rise of the Amals: Genealogy and the Goths under Hun Domination’, The Journal of Roman Studies 79: 102–28. (1991). Goths and Romans, 332–489 (Oxford Historical Monographs). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1993). ‘The Historical Culture of Ostrogothic Italy’, in Teodorico il Grande e i Goti d’Italia: Atti del XIII Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’Alto Medievo, Milano 2–6 Novembre 1992. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 317–53. (1995a). ‘The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe’, English Historical Review 110: 4–41. (1995b). ‘Theoderic, King of the Goths’, Early Medieval Europe 4: 145–73. (2006). The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. (2009). ‘Why Did the Barbarian Cross the Rhine?’, Journal of Late Antiquity 2: 3–29. (2018). ‘Ablabius’, Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity 1: 5. Hedrick, C. W. (2000). History and Silence: Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity. Austin: University of Texas Press. Heil, U. (2017). ‘Konstantin und Jerusalem.Theologische Architekturinterpretationen in neueren Veröffentlichungen’, in U. Heil and J. Ulrich, eds., Kirche und Kaiser in Antike und Spätantike (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 136). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 225–48. Heinzelmann, M. (2001). Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth Century. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hellmann, S. (1911). Gregorius von Tours: Zehn Bücher Fränkischer Geschichte. Leipzig: Dyk.

Bibliography 287 Helm, R. (1956). Eusebius Werke, Vol. VII: Die Chronik des Hieronymus (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Hen, Y. (2008). Roman Barbarians: The Royal Court and Cultural Patronage in Early Medieval Europe. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Henze, W. (1897). ‘Bruttius’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 3.1: 911–14. Hertzberg, H. (1874). Die Historien und die Chroniken des Isidorus von Sevilla: Eine Quellenuntersuchung; Erster Theil: Die Historien. Göttingen: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Herzog, R., ed. (1989). Restauration und Erneuerung: Die Lateinische Literatur von 284 bis 374 n. Chr. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 8. Abt., 5. Bd.). Munich: C. H. Beck. Hille, G. (1866). Prosperi Aquitani Chronici continuator Havniensis. Berlin: Weidemann. Hirschmann, F. G. (2011). Die Anfänge des Städtewesens in Mitteleuropa: Die Bischofssitze des Reiches bis ins 12. Jahrhundert (Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 59). Stuttgart: Hiersemann. Hoffmann, D. (1995). ‘Edowech und Decimius Rusticus’, in Arculiana: Festschrift Hans Bögli. Avenches: L.A.O.T.T., 559–64. Holder-Egger, O. (1876). ‘Untersuchungen über einige annalistische Quellen zur Geschichte des fünften und sechsten Jahrhunderts. III: Die Ravennater Annalen’, Neues Archiv 1: 215–347. (1878). Agnelli qui et Andreas liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX 1). Hannover: Weidemann. Honoré, T. (1989). Virius Nicomachus Flavianus (Xenia 23). Konstanz: Universitätsverlag. (1998). Law in the Crisis of Empire, 379–455 AD: The Theodosian Dynasty and Its Quaestors with a Palingenesia of Laws of the Dynasty. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Horsfall, N. (1993). ‘Two Problems of Late Imperial History’, in H. D. Jocelyn, ed., Tria Lustra: Essays and Notes Presented to John Pinsent (Liverpool Classical Papers 3). Liverpool: Liverpool Classical Monthly, 321–4. Hose, M. (1994). Erneuerung der Vergangenheit: Die Historiker im Imperium Romanum von Florus bis zu Cassius Dio (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 45). Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner. Hoyland, R. G. (2011). Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam (Translated Texts for Historians 57). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Hummer, H. J. (1998). ‘Franks and Alamanni: A Discontinuous Ethnogenesis’, in I. N. Wood, ed., Franks and Alamanni in the Merovingian Period: An Ethnographic Perspective (Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology 3). Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 9–21. Humphries, M. (1996). ‘Chronicle and Chronology: Prosper of Aquitaine, His Methods and the Development of Early Medieval Chronography’, Early Medieval Europe 5: 155–75.

288

Bibliography

(2019). ‘Narrative and Space in Christian Chronography: John of Biclaro on East, West, and Orthodoxy’, in P. Van Nuffelen, ed., Space and Historiography in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 86–112. Ihm, M. (1896). ‘Arverni’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften 2.2: 1488–9. Jacobi, R. (1877). Die Quellen der Langobardengeschichte des Paulus Diaconus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte deutscher Historiographie. Halle: Niemeyer. Jacobson, J. (1996). A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 31). Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill. Jacoby, F. (1923). Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. 1: Genealogie und Mythographie. Berlin: Weidmann. (1926). Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. 2: Zeitgeschichte. A: Universalgeschichte und Hellenika. Berlin: Weidmann. Jakobi, R. (2011). ‘Marcellinus Comes über das Ende im Westen des römischen Reiches. Eine quellenkritische Petitesse’, Philologus 155: 394–6. (2012). ‘Adnoten zu den Quellen der Chronik des Marcellinus Comes’, Hermes 140: 126–9. James, E. (1988). The Franks (The Peoples of Europe). Oxford and New York: Blackwell. Janiszewski, P. (2006). The Missing Link: Greek Pagan Historiography in the Second Half of the Third Century and in the Fourth Century AD (The Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplement 6). Warsaw: Faculty of Law and Administration. Janiszewski, P., K. Stebnicka, E. Szabat, and D. Dzierzbicka. (2015). Prosopography of Greek Rhetors and Sophists of the Roman Empire. New York: Oxford University Press. Jankowiak, M. and F. Montinaro, eds. (2015). Studies in Theophanes (Travaux et Mémoires / Collège de France – CNRS, Centre de Recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance 19). Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Janßen, T. (2004). Stilicho: Das weströmische Reich vom Tode des Theodosius bis zur Ermordung Stilichos (395–408). Marburg: Tectum-Verlag. Jeanjean, B. and B. Lançon. (2004). Saint Jérôme, Chronique: Continuation de Chronique d’Eusèbe, années 326–378 (Collection Histoire). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Jeffreys, E. (1990). ‘Malalas’ Sources’, in E. Jeffreys, ed., Studies in Malalas (Byzantina Australiensia 6). Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 167–216. (1996). ‘The Chronicle of John Malalas, Book I: A Commentary’, in P. Allen and E. Jeffreys, eds., The Sixth Century: End or Beginning? (Byzantina Australiensia 10). Brisbane: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 52–74. Jones, A. H. M. (1964). The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social Economic and Administrative Survey. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bibliography 289 Jones, C. P. (2014). Between Pagan and Christian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jussen, B. (1991). Patenschaft und Adoption im frühen Mittelalter: Künstliche Verwandtschaft als soziale Praxis (Veröffentlichungen des Max-PlanckInstituts für Geschichte 98). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kakridi, C. (2005). Cassiodors Variae: Literatur und Politik im ostgotischen Italien (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 223). Munich: Saur. Kaldellis, A. (2013). Ethnography after Antiquity: Foreign Lands and Peoples in Byzantine Literature (Empire and After). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kany, R. (2007). ‘Tempora Christiana: Vom Umgang des antiken Christentums mit Geschichte’, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10: 564–79. Karst, J. (1911). Eusebius Werke. 5: Die Chronik des Eusebius. Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Kaster, R. A. (1988). Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 11). Berkeley: University of California Press. (2011a). Macrobii Ambrosii Theodosii Saturnalia (Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis). Oxford: Clarendon Press. (2011b). Macrobius: Saturnalia (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kaufmann, F.-M. (1995). Studien zu Sidonius Apollinaris (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe III, Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften, Publications universitaires européennes 681). Frankfurt am Main and New York: P. Lang. Kaufmann, G. (1883). ‘Die Fasten von Constantinopel und die Fasten von Ravenna’, Philologus 42: 474–510. Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. (1993). Ioannis Saresberiensis Policraticus: I–IV (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 118). Turnhout: Brepols. Kehne, P. (2001). ‘Marcomer’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 19: 272–3. Keil, H. (1868). Grammatici Latini, 5 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Kelly, C. (2009). Attila the Hun: Barbarian Terror and the Fall of the Roman Empire. London: Vintage. Kelly, G. (2007a). ‘“To Forge Their Tongues to Grander Style”: Ammianus’ Epilogue’, in J. Marincola, ed., A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 474–80. (2007b). ‘The Sphragis and Closure of the Res Gestae’, in J. den Boeft, D. den Hengst, H. C. Teitler, and J. W. Drijvers, eds., Ammianus after Julian: The Reign of Valentinian and Valens in Books 26–31 of the Res Gestae. Leiden: Brill, 219–41. (2008). Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

290

Bibliography

(2010). ‘The Roman World of Festus’ Breviarium’, in C. Kelly, R. Flower, and M. S. Williams, eds., Unclassical Traditions: Alternatives to the Classical Past in Late Antiquity (Cambridge Classical Journal Supplementary Volume 34). Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 72–89. (2018). ‘Nicomachus Flavianus the Elder’, Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity 2: 1073–4. Kelly, G. and J. A. Stover. (2016). ‘The Hersfeldensis and the Fuldensis of Ammianus Marcellinus: A Reconsideration’, Cambridge Classical Journal 62: 108–29. Kelly, J. N. D. (1975). Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. London: Duckworth. Kerner, M. (1977). Johannes von Salisbury und die logische Struktur seines Policraticus. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Kimmerle, N. (2013). ‘Epos oder Geschichtsschreibung? Antike Lucan-Kritik im Rahmen antiker Gattungsvorstellungen’, Millennium Jahrbuch 10: 463–500. Klein, R. (1971). Symmachus: Eine tragische Gestalt des ausgehenden Heidentums (Impulse der Forschung 2). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Klein, W. (1914). Studien zu Ammianus Marcellinus. Leipzig: Dieterich. Kolendo, J. (1986). ‘Prisca carmina et la valeur de la tradition sur la migration des Goths dans l’ouvrage de Jordanes’, Archaeologia Baltica 7: 9–16. König, I. (1987). Origo Constantini: Anonymus Valesianus; Teil 1: Text und Kommentar (Trierer Historische Forschungen 11). Trier: Verlag Trierer historische Forschungen. (1997). Aus der Zeit Theoderichs des Grossen: Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar einer anonymen Quelle (Texte zur Forschung 69). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Korkannen, I. (1975). ‘The Peoples of Hermenaric: Jordanes, Getica 116’, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B 187: 21. Kouznetsov, V. A. and I. Lebedynsky. (2005). Les Alains: Cavaliers des steppes, seigneurs du Caucase; Ier–XVe siècles apr. J.-C. (Civilisations et cultures). Paris: Errance. Krappe, A. H. (1941). ‘Picus Who Is Also Zeus’, Mnemosyne 9: 241–57. Krautschik, S. (1983). Cassiodor und die Politik seiner Zeit. Bonn: Habelt. Kroll, W. (1918). ‘Carminius (9)’, RE Supplementum 3: 235. Krusch, B. and W. Levison. (1951). Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis libri Historiarum X, 2 vols., Vol. I (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum 1). Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Kulikowski, M. (2000a). ‘Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain’, Britannia 31: 325–45. (2000b). ‘The Career of the Comes Hispaniarum Asterius’, Phoenix 54: 123–41. (2004). Late Roman Spain and Its Cities (Ancient Society and History). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (2007). Rome’s Gothic Wars: From the Third Century to Alaric. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography 291 Labriolle, P. de. (1948). La réaction païenne: Étude sur la polémique anti-chrétienne du premier au sixième siècle. Paris: L’artisan du livre. Lafaurie, J. (1992). ‘Un nouvel argenteus de Flavius Victor’, in M. Christol, S. Demougin, Y. Duval, C. Lepelley, and C. Pietri, eds., Institutions, société et vie politique dans l’empire romain au IVe siècle ap. J.-C. Rome: École française de Rome, 127–36. Laistner, M. L. W. (1940). ‘Some Reflections on Latin Historical Writing in the Fifth Century’, Classical Philology 35: 241–58. Lakatos, P. (1978). Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der Heruler (Acta Universitatis de Attila Jószef nominatae: Acta antiqua et archaeologica 21). Szeged: s.n. Lana, I. (1979). ‘La storiografia latina pagana del IV sec. d.C.’, Koinonia 3: 7–28. Lanzoni, F. (1909). ‘Il “liber pontificalis” ravennate’, Rivista di scienze storiche 6: 345–70, 425–64, 571–92. Lavarenne, M. (1950). ‘Review W. Ensslin, Des Symmachus Historia Romana als Quelle für Jordanes’, Latomus 5: 327–9. Le Clerc, J. V. (1735). Histoire littéraire de la France, Vol. III. Paris. Lehmann, P. J. G. (1927). Pseudo-antike Literatur des Mittelalters. Leipzig: Teubner. Leicht, P. S. (1906). ‘La prima edizione del frammento di Secondo da Trento’, Memorie storiche cividalesi 2: 28–32. Leoni, T. (2016). ‘The Text of the Josephan Corpus’, in H. Howell Chapman and Z. Rodgers, eds., A Companion to Josephus (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 307–21. Leppin, H. (2011). Justinian: Das christliche Experiment. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Levenson, D. B. and T. R. Martin. (2016). ‘The Ancient Latin Translations of Josephus’, in H. Howell Chapman and Z. Rodgers, eds., A Companion to Josephus (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Chichester: WileyBlackwell, 322–45. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (2003). ‘Pagan Historiography and the Decline of the Empire’, in G. Marasco, ed., Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century AD. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 177–218. (2011). ‘Making a Gothic History: Does the Getica of Jordanes Preserve Genuinely Gothic Traditions?’, Journal of Late Antiquity 4: 185–216. Lippold, A. (1991). Kommentar zur Vita Maximini Duo der Historia Augusta (Antiquitas, Reihe 4: Beiträge zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung, Serie 3, Kommentare 1). Bonn: Habelt. Lipps, J., C. Machado, and P. von Rummel, eds. (2013). The Sack of Rome in 410 AD: The Event, Its Context and Its Impact; Proceedings of the Conference Held at the German Archaeological Institute at Rome, 04–06 November 2010 (Palilia 28). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Lizzi Testa, R., ed. (2013). The Strange Death of Pagan Rome: Reflections on a Historiographical Controversy (Giornale italiano di filologia, Biblioteca 16). Turnhout: Brepols. Lo Monaco, F. (2012). ‘Dai fasti a Fredegario’, in F. Lo Monaco and F. Mores, eds., I Longobardi e la storia: Un percorso attraverso le fonti (Altomedioevo 7). Rome: Viella, 75–104.

292

Bibliography

Long, J. (2006). ‘“Kill All the Dogs!” or “Apollonius Says!”: Two Stories against Punitive Violence’, in H. Drake, ed., Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Reality. Aldershot: Ashgate, 225–34. Lorenzo Lorenzo, J. (1976). El valor de los preverbios en Jordanes. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Lotter, F. (2003). Völkerverschiebungen im Ostalpen-Mitteldonau-Raum zwischen Antike und Mittelalter: (375–600) (Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde – Ergänzungsbände 39). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Löwe, H. (1953). ‘Paulus Diaconus’, in W. Wattenbach, W. Levison, and H. Löwe, eds., Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter: Vorzeit und Karolinger. Weimar: Böhlau, 203–24. Loyen, A. (1960). Sidoine Apollinaire, Vol. I: Poèmes (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (1970). Sidoine Apollinaire, Vol. III: Lettres (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Luiselli, B. (1975). ‘Note sulla perduta Historia Romana di Q. Aurelio Memmio Simmaco’, Studi Urbinati (Serie B) 49: 529–35. (1976). ‘Sul De summa temporum di Iordanes’, Romanobarbarica 1: 83–134. (1980). ‘Cassiodoro e la storia dei Goti’, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 45: 225–53. (1992). Storia culturale dei rapporti tra mondo romano e mondo germanico. Rome: Herder. Lunn-Rockliffe, S. (2010). ‘Commemorating the Usurper Magnus Maximus: Ekphrasis, Poetry, and History in Pacatus’ Panegyric of Theodosius’, Journal of Late Antiquity 3: 316–36. Lütkenhaus, W. (1998). Constantius III: Studien zu seiner Tätigkeit und Stellung im Westreich 411–421 (Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Alte Geschichte 44). Bonn: Habelt. Maas, M. (2012). ‘Barbarians in Late Antiquity: Problems and Approaches’, in S. F. Johnson, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 60–91. Maas, M., ed. (2015). The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila (Cambridge Companions to the Ancient World). New York: Cambridge University Press. Maffei, R. (1526). Commentariorum urbanorum Raphaelis Volaterrani: octo & triginta libri cum duplici eorundem indice secundum tomos collecto. Item …. Paris: ab Ioanne parvo et Iodoco Badio Ascensio. Mango, C. A., R. Scott, and G. Greatrex. (1997). The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–813. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press. Marasco, G., ed. (2003). Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century AD. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Maraval, P. (1985). Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient: Histoire et géographie des origines à la conquête arabe. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf. Marcone, A. (1987). Commento storico al libro IV dell’epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco: Introduzione, commento storico, testo, traduzione, indici. Pisa: Giardini.

Bibliography 293 Mariev, S. (2008). Ioannis Antiocheni fragmenta quae supersunt omnia. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. (2016). ‘John of Antioch Reloaded: A Tutorial’, in M. Meier, C. Radtki, and F. Schulz, eds., Die Weltchronik des Johannes Malalas: Autor – Werk – Überlieferung (Malalas-Studien 1). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 253–64. Marincola, J. (1997). Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marincola, J., ed. (2007). A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Markus, R. (1979). ‘Carthage – Prima Justiniana – Ravenna: An Aspect of Justinian’s Kirchenpolitik’, Byzantion 49: 277–301. Martin, G. and J. Grusková. (2014). ‘“Scythica Vindobonensia” by Dexippus(?): New Fragments on Decius’ Gothic Wars’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 54: 728–54. Martin, M. (1981). ‘Burgunden’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 4: 224–71. (2005). ‘Zur Entstehung des ersten burgundischen Königreichs (413–436) am Rhein’, in B. Päffgen, E. Pohl, and M. Schmauder, eds., Cum grano salis: Beiträge zur europäischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte; Festschrift für Volker Bierbrauer zum 65. Geburtstag. Friedberg: Likias, 237–48. Maspero, J. (1923). Histoire des patriarches d’Alexandrie: Depuis la mort de l’empereur Anastase jusqu’à la réconciliation des églises jacobites (518–616) (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études: Sciences philologiques et historiques 237). Paris: Champion. Mastandrea, P. (2011). ‘Vita dei principi e storia romana, tra Simmaco e Giordane’, in L. Cristante and S. Ravalico, eds., Il calamo della memoria: Riuso di testi e mestiere letterario nella tarda antichità IV; Raccolta delle relazioni discusse nel IV incontro internazionale di Trieste, Biblioteca Statale, 28–30 aprile 2010. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 207–45. Mathisen, R. W. (2013). ‘Roma a Gothis Alarico duce capta est: Ancient Accounts of the Sack of Rome in 410 CE’, in J. Lipps, C. Machado, and P. von Rummel, eds., The Sack of Rome in 410 AD: The Event, Its Context and Its Impact (Palilia 28). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 87–102. Matthews, J. (1973). ‘Symmachus and the Oriental Cults’, The Journal of Roman Studies 63: 175–95. (1975). Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364–425. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1989). The Roman Empire of Ammianus. London: Duckworth. (1997). ‘Codex Theodosianus 9.40.13 and Nicomachus Flavianus’, Historia 46: 196–213. (2012). ‘The Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae’, in L. Grig and G. Kelly, eds., Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity (Oxford Studies in Late Antiquity). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 81–114. Mazza, M. (1986): ‘La Historia tripartita di Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro Senatore: Metodi e scopo’, in S. Leanza, ed., Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro. Catanzaro: Soveria Mannelli, 210–44.

294

Bibliography

McEvoy, M. (2013). Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367–455 (Oxford Classical Monographs). Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKitterick, R. (2004). History and Memory in the Carolingian World. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. McLynn, N. B. (1994). Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 22). Berkeley: University of California Press. (2013). ‘Orosius, Jerome and the Goths’, in J. Lipps, C. Machado, and P. von Rummel, eds., The Sack of Rome in 410 AD: The Event, Its Context and Its Impact (Palilia 28). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 323–33. Mecella, L. (2013). Dexippo di Atene: Testimonianze e frammenti (I frammenti degli storici greci 6). Rome: Tored. (2017). ‘Gli Excerpta Planudea, Pietro Patrizio e la tradizione storiografica occidentale’, in V. Neri and B. Girotti, eds., La storiografia tardoantica: Bilanci e prospettive. Milan: LED, 153–68. Meier, M. (2003). Das andere Zeitalter Justinians: Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewältigung im 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Hypomnemata 147). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Meier, M. and S. Patzold. (2010). August 410: Ein Kampf um Rom. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Meijer, F. and M. A. Wes. (2000). Gregorius van Tours: Historiën. Amsterdam: Ambo. Mensching, E. (1963). Favorin von Arelate, der erste Teil der Fragmente: Memorabilien und omnigena historia (Texte und Kommentare 3). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Merrill, E. T. (1924). Essays in Early Christian History. London: Macmillan. Merrills, A. H. (2005). History and Geography in Late Antiquity (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser. 64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Merrills, A. H. and R. Miles. (2010). The Vandals (The Peoples of Europe). Chichester and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Merten, E. (1906). De bello Persico ab Anastasio gesto. Leipzig: Teubner. Milazzo, A. (1993). ‘L’Anecdoton Holderi: Un genere letterario contaminato’, in S. Leanza, ed., Cassiodoro: Dalla corte di Ravenna al vivarium di Squillace (Bibliotheca vivariensis 2). Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino, 177–89. Mineo, B., ed. (2015). A Companion to Livy (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Mitchell, S. (2007). A History of the Later Roman Empire, AD 284–641: The Transformation of the Ancient World (Blackwell History of the Ancient World). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Modéran, Y. and M.-Y. Perrin. (2014). Les Vandales et l’Empire Romain. Arles: Éditions Errance. Möller, L. (2012). Jordanes: Die Gotengeschichte; Übersetzt, eingeleitet und erläutert. Wiesbaden: Matrix Verlag. Momigliano, A. (1958). ‘Some Observations on the Origo Gentis Romanae’, The Journal of Roman Studies 48: 56–73.

Bibliography 295 (1960a). ‘Cassiodorus and Italian Culture of His Time’, in id., Secondo contributo alla storia degli studi classici. Rome: Storia e letteratura, 191–229. (1960b). ‘Gli Anicii e la storiografia latina del VI sec. d.C.’, in id., Secondo contributo alla storia degli studi classici. Rome: Storia e letteratura, 231–53. (1963). ‘Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century’, in id., ed., The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 79–99. Mommsen, T. (1880). ‘Die Quellen der Langobardengeschichte des Paulus Diaconus’, Neues Archiv 5: 51–103. (1882). Iordanis Romana et Getica (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Auctores antiquissimi 5.1). Berlin: Weidmann. (1892). Chronica minora saec. iv.v.vi.vii, Vol. I (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Auctores antiquissimi 9). Berlin: Weidmann. (1894a). Chronica minora saec. iv.v.vi.vii, Vol. II (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Auctores antiquissimi 11). Berlin: Weidmann. (1894b). Cassiodori Senatoris Variae (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Auctores antiquissimi 12). Berlin: Weidmann. (1898). Chronica minora saec. iv.v.vi.vii, Vol. III (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Auctores antiquissimi 13). Berlin: Weidmann. (1906). ‘Aetius’, Hermes 36: 516–47. Monceaux, P. (1920). Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe, Vol. V: Saint Optat et les premiers écrivains donatistes. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Monod, G. (1874). Études critiques sur les sources d’histoire mérovingienne. Paris: Franck. Moorhead, J. (1992). Theoderic in Italy. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press. Moorhead, S. and D. Stuttard. (2010). AD 410: The Year That Shook Rome. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. von Moos, P. (1988). Geschichte als Topik: Das rhetorische Exemplum von der Antike zur Neuzeit und die Historiae im “Policraticus” Johanns von Salisbury (Ordo 2). Hildesheim and New York: Olms. Morris, J. (1978). Nennius: The British History and the Welsh Annals. London: Phillimore. Mortesen, L. B. (1987). ‘Goternes historie på romersk’, Museum Tusculanum 57: 169–79. (2000). ‘Impero Romano, Historia Romana e Historia Langobardorum’, in P. Chiesa, ed., Paolo Diacono: Uno scrittore fra tradizione longobarda e rinnovamento carolingio (Libri e Biblioteche 9). Udine: Forum. Mosshammer, A. (1984). Georgius Syncellus. Ecloga chronographica. Leipzig: Teubner. Mras, K. (1958). ‘Die Hegesippus-Frage’, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 95: 143–53. Mras, K. and V. Ussani. (1932). Hegesippi qui dicitur Historiae libri V, 2 vols. (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 66). Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky.

296

Bibliography

Muhlberger, S. (1981). The Fifth-Century Chroniclers: Prosper, Hydatius, and the Gallic Chronicler of 452. Leeds: F. Cairns. (1992). ‘Looking Back from Mid-Century: The Gallic Chronicler of 452 and the Crisis of Honorius’ Reign’, in J. F. Drinkwater and H. Elton, eds., FifthCentury Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28–37. Mundt, F. (2001). ‘Die Maske des Christen: Spuren christlicher Literatur in der Historia Augusta’, in G. Thome and J. Holzhausen, eds., Es hat sich viel ereignet, Gutes wie Böses: Lateinische Geschichtsschreibung der Spät- und Nachantike (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 141). Munich and Leipzig: Saur, 37–56. Murgia, C. B. (1970). ‘Avienus’ Supposed Iambic Version of Livy’, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 3: 185–97. Murray, A. C., ed. (2016). A Companion to Gregory of Tours (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 63). Leiden and Boston: Brill. Mynors, R. A. B. (1937). Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Näf, B. (2010). Antike Geschichtsschreibung: Form – Leistung – Wirkung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Nagy, T. (1967). ‘Reoccupation of Pannonia from the Huns in 427 (Did Jordanes Use the Chronicon of Marcellinus Comes at the Writing of the Getica?)’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 15: 159–86. Natal, D. (2018a). ‘Putting the Roman Periphery on the Map: The Geography of Romanness, Orthodoxy, and Legitimacy in Victricius of Rouen’s De Laude Sanctorum: Putting the Roman Periphery on the Map’, Early Medieval Europe 26: 304–26. (2018b). ‘Symmachus, Q. Aurelius Memmius junior’, Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity 2: 1437. Naudé, C. P. T. (1956). Ammianus Marcellinus: In die lig van die antieke geskiedkrywing. Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden. Nauerth, C. (1996). Agnellus Liber pontificalis (Fontes Christiani 21). Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Navarra, L. (1999). ‘Interconnessioni letterarie e ideologiche di Cassiodoro e Isidoro storici dei Goti’, Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 23: 251–63. Nederman, C. J. (1990). John of Salisbury, Policraticus: Of the Frivolities of Courtiers and the Footprints of Philosophers (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Nelson, L. H. and C. A. S. Nelson. (1977). ‘Orosius’ Commentary on the Fall of Roman Spain’, Classical Folia 31: 85–104. Neumann, G. and M. Taylor. (1994). ‘Heruler’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 14: 468–74. Nicolai, R. (1992). La storiografia nell’educazione antica. Pisa: Giardini. Nonn, U. (2010). Die Franken (Kohlhammer-Urban-Taschenbücher 579). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. O’Donnell, J. J. (1978). ‘The Career of Nicomachus Flavianus’, Phoenix 32: 129–43.

Bibliography 297 (1979). Cassiodorus. Berkeley: University of California Press. (1982). ‘The Aims of Jordanes’, Historia 31: 223–40. Oechsli, W. (1873). Ueber die Historia miscella, 1.XII–XVIII. Und den Anonymus Valesianus II.: Zwei Quellenuntersuchungen zur Geschichte des untergehenden Römerthums. Zürich: Bürkli. Oldoni, M. (1972). ‘Gregorio di Tours e i libri historiarum: Letture e fonti, metodi e ragioni’, Studi medievali 13: 563–700. (1981). Gregorio di Tours: La storia dei Franchi. Milan: Mondadori. van Oort, J. (2018a). ‘Tyconius’ Apocalypse Commentary, Its Reconstruction, and Its Significance for Augustine’s Doctrine of the Two Cities’, Vigiliae Christianae 75: 513–32. (2018b). ‘De bello intestino. In Search of Tyconius’ and Augustine’s Use of a Term’, Augustiniana 68: 125–40. Oost, S. I. (1968). Galla Placidia Augusta: A Biographical Essay. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pallmann, R. (1863). Die Geschichte der Völkerwanderung von der Gothenbekehrung bis zum Tode Alarichs. Gotha: Berthes. (1864). Die Geschichte der Völkerwanderung nach den Quellen dargestellt, Vol. II: Der Sturz des Weströmischen Reiches durch die deutschen Söldner. Weimar: Böhlau. Paschoud, F. (1975a). Cinq études sur Zosime. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (1975b). ‘Deux ouvrages récents sur l’Epitome de Caesaribus et Aurelius Victor’, Revue des Études Latines 53: 96–8. (1989). Zosime: Histoire nouvelle, Vol. III, Part 2: Livre VI (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (1992). ‘Valentinien travesti, ou: De la malignité d’Ammien’, in J. den Boeft, D. den Hengst, and H. C. Teitler, eds., Cognitio Gestorum: The Historiographic Art of Ammianus Marcellinus (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, D 148). Amsterdam: North Holland Publication Company, 67–84. (1994). ‘Nicomaque Flavien et la connexion Byzantine (Pierre le Patrice et Zonaras): À propos du livre récent de Bruno Bleckmann’, Antiquité tardive 2: 71–82. (1997). ‘Les descendants d’Ammien Marcellin (Sulpicius Alexander et Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus)’, in D. Knoepfler, ed., Nomen Latinum: Mélanges de langue, de littérature et de civilisation latines offerts au professeur André Schneider à l’occasion de son départ à la retraite. Genève: Droz, 141–7. (1998a). ‘Note sur les relations de trois historiens des IVe et Ve siècles: Sulpicius Alexander, Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus et Olympiodore’, Antiquité tardive 6: 313–16. (1998b). ‘Quelques problèmes actuels relatifs à l’historiographie de l’Antiquité tardive’, Symbolae Osloenses 73: 74–87. (2001). Histoire Auguste, Vol. I, Part 2: Vies de Probus, Firmus, Saturnin, Proclus et Bonose, Carus, Numérien et Carin (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

298

Bibliography

(2002). Histoire Auguste, Vol. I, Part 1: Vies d’Aurélien et de Tacite (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (2003). Zosime: Histoire nouvelle, Vol. I: Livres I–II (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (2005). ‘Biographie und Panegyricus: Wie spricht man vom lebenden Kaiser?’, in K. Vössing, ed., Biographie und Prosopographie. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 103–18. (2006). ‘Preuves de la présence d’une source occidentale latine dans la tradition grecque pour l’histoire du 4e siècle’, in id., Eunape, Olympiodore, Zosime: Scripta minora. Bari: Edipuglia, 413–22. (2011). Zosime: Histoire nouvelle, Vol. III, Part 1: Livre V (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (2012). ‘On a Recent Book by Alan Cameron: The Last Pagans of Rome’, Antiquité tardive 20: 359–88. (2017). ‘Tre studi sulle “vite del 238” della Historia Augusta’, in V. Neri and B. Girotti, eds., La storiografia tardoantica: Bilanci e prospettive. Milan: LED, 37–45. Passalacqua, M. (1987). Prisciani Caesariensis opuscula. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Patzig, E. (1894). ‘Leo Grammaticus und seine Sippe’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 3: 470–97. (1896). ‘Über einige Quellen des Zonaras’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 5: 24–53. (1897). ‘Über einige Quellen des Zonaras II’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 6: 322–56. Pecere, O. (1986). ‘La tradizione dei testi latini tra IV e V secolo attraverso i libri sottoscritti’, in A. Giardina, ed., Società romana e impero tardoantico IV: Tradizioni dei classici, trasformazioni della cultura. Bari: Laterza, 19–81, 210–46. Pellizzari, A. (1998). Commento storico al libro III dell’epistolato di Q. Aurelio Simmaco: Introduzione, commento storico, testo, traduzione, indici (Biblioteca di studi antichi 81). Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali. Périn, P. (1998). ‘La progression des Francs en Gaule du Nord au Ve siècle’, in D. Geuenich, ed., Die Franken und die Alemannen bis zur “Schlacht bei Zülpich” (496/497) (Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexicon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 19). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 59–81. Pez, B. (1729). Thesaurus Anecdotorum Novissimus, seu Veterum Monumentorum, praecipue Ecclesiasticorum, ex Germanicis potissimum Bibliothecis adornata Collectio recentissima: Codex diplomatico-historico-epistolaris: quo Diplomata, Chartae, Epistolae, Fragmenta Opusculorum, Epitaphia, & alia id genus …, Vol. VI.2. Augsburg: Sumptibus Philippi, Martini, & Joannis Veith fratrum. Picard, J.-C. (1988). Le souvenir des évêques: Sépultures, listes épiscopales et culte des évêques en Italie du Nord des origines au Xe siècle (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 268). Rome: École française de Rome. Pichlmayr, F. (1966). Sexti Aurelii Victoris Liber de Caesaribus: Praecedunt Origo gentis Romanae et Liber de viris illustribus urbis Romae, subsequitur Epitome de Caesaribus. Leipzig: Teubner.

Bibliography 299 Pierpaoli, M. (1984). Vita e personaggi di Ravenna antica. Ravenna: Libreria Tonini. Pighi, G. B. (1948). Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum capita selecta. Neuchâtel: Éditions du Griffon. Pincherle, A. (1925). ‘Da Ticonio a Sant’Agostino’, Ricerche religiose 1: 443–66. Pinius, J., G. Cuperus, and J. Stiltingus. (1741). Acta Sanctorum Augusti, Vol. V. Antwerp: Bernardus Albertus vander Plassche. Pizarro, J. M. (1995). Writing Ravenna: The Liber Pontificalis of Andreas Agnellus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (2003). ‘Ethnic and National History c. 500–1000’, in D. M. Deliyannis, ed., Historiography in the Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill, 43–87. (2005). The Story of Wamba: Julian of Toledo’s Historia Wambae Regis. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. Plassmann, A. (2009). Origo gentis: Identitäts- und Legitimitätsstiftung in früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Herkunftserzählungen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. (2016). ‘Lateinische Stammes- und Volksgeschichtsschreibung im frühen und hohen Mittelalter’, in G. Wolf and N. H. Ott, eds., Handbuch Chroniken des Mittelalters. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 47–76. Plechl, H. (2002). Die Tegernseer Briefsammlung des 12. Jahrhunderts (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Die Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 8). Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Pohl, W. (1988). Die Awaren: Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa, 567–822 n. Chr. Munich: Beck. (1994). ‘Paulus Diaconus und die “Historia Langobardorum”: Text und Tradition’, in A. Scharer and G. Scheibelreiter, eds., Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter. Vienna and Munich: Oldenbourg, 375–405. (1997). ‘The Empire and the Lombards; Treaties and Negotiations in the Sixth Century’, in id., ed., Kingdoms of the Empire: The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 75–133. (2002). ‘Ethnicity, Theory and Tradition: A Response’, in A. Gillett, ed., On Barbarian Identity: Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 4). Turnhout: Brepols, 221–39. (2007). ‘Heresy in Secundus and Paul the Deacon’, in C. M. Chazelle and C. Cubitt, eds., The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-Century Mediterranean (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 14). Turnhout: Brepols, 243–64. (2012). ‘Origo gentis Langobardorum’, in F. Lo Monaco and F. Mores, eds., I Longobardi e la storia: Un percorso attraverso le fonti (Altomedioevo 7). Rome: Viella, 105–22. (2016). ‘Genealogy: A Comparative Perspective from the Early Medieval West’, in E. Hovden, C. Lutter, and W. Pohl, eds., Meanings of Community across Medieval Eurasia: Comparative Approaches. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 232–69. (2020). ‘Debating Ethnicity in Post-Roman Historiography’, in H. Reimitz and G. Heydemann, eds., Historiography and Identity 2: Post-Roman Multiplicity and New Political Identities. Turnhout: Brepols.

300

Bibliography

Pohl, W. and P. Dörler. (2015). ‘Isidore and the gens Gothorum’, Antiquité tardive 23: 133–41. Pollard, R. M. (2015). ‘The De Excidio of “Hegesippus” and the Reception of Josephus in the Early Middle Ages’, Viator 46: 65–100. Prchlík, I. (2007). ‘Sidonius or Flavianus: By Whom Was Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii Translated into Latin?’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philologica: Graecolatina Pragensia 22: 199–210. (2011). ‘Zosimus, Praetextatus, and Valentinian I: The Quellenforschung Note on Zosimus, Historia Nova, IV, 3, 3, and the Possible Purpose of the Annales of Nicomachus Flavianus’, Listy Filologické 134: 309–22. (2012). ‘Historicus Dissertissimus, but What Else? Questions Regarding the Literary Work of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philologica: Graecolatina Pragensia 24: 49–63. (2015). ‘The Fiery Eyes and the Annales of Nicomachus Flavianus’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philologica: Graecolatina Pragensia 25: 9–20. Price, R. (2009). The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: With Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy (Translated Texts for Historians 51). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Pricoco, S. (1965). ‘Sidonio Apollinare traduttore della Vita di Apollonio di Tiana di Filostrato’, Nuovo Didaskaleion 15: 71–98. Pronay, A. (2014). Cassiodorus Senator: Einführung in die geistlichen und weltlichen Wissenschaften (Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum) (Spudasmata 163). Hildesheim: Olms. Prostko-Prostynski, J. (1994). ‘Die angebliche Erwähnung von Ablabius in Cassiodorus, Var. 22, 2’, Latomus 53: 404–9. Puccioni, G. (1958). ‘La compositione dell’OGR’, Annali della Scuola normale di Pisa 27: 211–23. Quaresima, E. (1952). ‘Il frammento di Secondo di Trento’, Studi trentini 31: 72–6. Raimondi, M. (2003). ‘Bemarchio di Cesarea, panegirista di Costantino e Costantinopoli: Per una reinterpretazione di Libanio, Or. I 39 ; 41’, Rivista storica dell’Antichità 33: 171–99. Ratti, S. (1996). ‘Les Romana de Jordanès et le bréviaire d’Eutrope’, L’Antiquité classique 65: 175–87. (1997). ‘Jérôme et Nicomaque Flavien: Sur les sources de la chronique pour les années 357–364’, Historia 46: 479–508. (2001). ‘Les sources de la Chronique de Jérôme pour les années 357–364: Nouveaux éléments’, in B. Pouderon and Y.-M. Duval, eds., L’historiographie de l’église des premiers siècles (Théologie Historique 114). Paris: Beauchesne, 425–50. (2003). ‘L’historiographie latine tardive, IIIe–IV siècle: État des recherches 1987–2002’, Pallas 63: 209–32. (2007a). ‘Nicomaque Flavien senior auteur de l’Histoire Auguste’, in G. Bonamente and H. Brandt, eds., Historiae Augustae Colloquium Bambergense. Bari: Edipuglia, 305–17. (2007b). ‘Nicomaque Flavien Senior et l’Histoire Auguste: La découverte de nouveaux liens’, Revue des Études Latines 85: 204–19.

Bibliography 301 (2011). Antiquus error: Les ultimes feux de la résistence païenne; Scripta varia augmentés de cinq études inédites. Turnhout: Brepols. (2012). Polémiques entre païens et chrétiens. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (2016). ‘Herennianus dans l’Histoire Auguste’, in C. Freu, S. Janniard, and A. Ripoll, eds., Libera curiositas: Mélanges d’histoire romaine et d’Antiquité tardive offerts à Jean-Michel Carrié (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité tardive 31). Turnhout: Brepols, 327–32. Rebenich, S. (1992). Hieronymus und sein Kreis: Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Historia Einzelschriften 72). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. (2002). Jerome (The Early Church Fathers). London and New York: Routledge. (2009). ‘Christian Asceticism and Barbarian Incursion: The Making of a Christian Catastrophe’, Journal of Late Antiquity 2: 49–59. Rees, R. (2002). Layers of Loyalty in Latin Panegyric, AD 289–307. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. (2010). ‘Form and Function of Narrative in Roman Panegyrical Oratory’, in D. H. Berry and A. Erskine, eds., Form and Function in Roman Oratory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 105–21. Reichert, H. and H. Castritius. (1998). ‘Gennobaudes’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 11: 77–9. Reimitz, H. (2013). ‘Ethnogenesis’, in The Encyclopaedia of Ancient History 5: 2528–31. (2015a). History, Frankish Identity and the Framing of Western Ethnicity, 550–850 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser. 101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2015b). ‘Transformations of Late Antiquity: The Writing and Re-Writing of Church History at the Monastery of Lorsch, c. 800’, in C. Gantner, R. McKitterick, and S. Meeder, eds., The Resources of the Past in Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 262–82. Revanoglou, A. M. (2005). Γεωγραφικά και εθνογραφικά στοιχεία στο έργο του Προκοπίου Καισαρείας. Thessaloniki: Κέντρο Βυζαντινών Ερευνων. Rexroth, F. (1995). ‘Franken. III: Historisches’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 9: 414–61. Reydellet, M. (1981). La royauté dans la littérature latine, de Sidoine Apollinaire à Isidore de Séville (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 243). Rome and Paris: École française de Rome. Richard, J. (1983). Pseudo-Aurélius Victor: Les origines du peuple romain (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Richardson, E. C. (1896). Hieronymus, liber De viris inlustribus; Gennadius, liber De viris inlustribus; Der sogenannte Sophronius (Texte und Untersuchungen 14.1). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Riese, A. (1878). Geographi Latini minores. Heilbronn: Hennigeros. Riess, F. (2013). Narbonne and Its Territory in Late Antiquity: From the Visigoths to the Arabs. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate. Riginos, A. S. (1976). Platonica: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato. Leiden: Brill.

302

Bibliography

Rinaudo, C. (1882). Di alcune fonti della storia dei Longobardi di Paolo Diacono. Turin: Eredi Botta. Roberto, U. (2005). Ioannis Antiocheni fragmenta ex Historia Chronica (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 154). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. (2014). ‘Origo Gentis Langobardorum’, in G. Dunphy, ed., Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle. Leiden: Brill, 1169–70. Rochette, B. (1997). Le latin dans le monde grec: Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain (Collection Latomus 233). Bruxelles: Latomus. Roda, S. (1981). Commento storico al libro IX dell’epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco. Pisa: Giardini. Rohrbacher, D. (2002). The Historians of Late Antiquity. London and New York: Routledge. (2013). ‘The Sources of the Historia Augusta Re-Examined’, Histos 7: 143–80. (2016). The Play of Allusion in the Historia Augusta. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Romano, D. (1979). Letterature e storia nell’età tardoromana (Graecolatina 1). Palermo: Vittorietti. Romm, J. S. (1992). The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration, and Fiction. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rosen, K. (1982). Ammianus Marcellinus (Erträge der Forschung 183). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (2016). Attila: Der Schrecken der Welt. Munich: Beck. Ross, A. J. (2016). ‘Libanius the Historian? Praise and the Presentation of the Past in Or. 59’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56: 293–320. Rühl, F. (1871). Die Verbreitung des Justinus im Mittelalter: Eine literarhistorische Untersuchung. Leipzig: Teubner. (1880). ‘Ein Anekdoton zur gotischen Urgeschichte’, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 50 = Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 26: 549–76. Runde, I. (1998). ‘Die Franken und Alemannen vor 500: Ein chronologischer Überblick’, in D. Geuenich, ed., Die Franken und die Alemannen bis zur “Schlacht bei Zülpich” (496/497) (Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexicon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 19). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 656–92. Runia, D. T. (1997). ‘Doxographie’, Der neue Pauly 3: 803–6. Sabbah, G. (1978). La méthode d’Ammien Marcellin: Recherches sur la construction du discours historique dans les Res gestae (Collection d’études anciennes). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (1997). ‘Ammien Marcellin, Libanios, Antioche et la date des derniers livres des Res Gestae’, Cassiodorus 3: 89–116. (2003). ‘Ammianus Marcellinus’, in G. Marasco, ed., Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century AD. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 43–84. Salisbury, J. E. (2015). Rome’s Christian Empress: Galla Placidia Rules at the Twilight of the Empire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bibliography 303 Salway, B. (1994). ‘What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700’, The Journal of Roman Studies 84: 145–54. Salzman, M. R. (2010). ‘Ambrose and the Usurpation of Arbogastes and Eugenius: Reflections on Pagan–Christian Conflict Narratives’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 18: 191–223. Salzman, M. R. and M. J. Roberts. (2011). The Letters of Symmachus: Book 1 (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 30). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Sánchez Vendramini, D. N. (2012). ‘Los breviarios históricos y la cultura de la nueva elite del Bajo Imperio Romano (260–395 d.C.)’, Temas medievales 20: 275–325. Santelia, S. (2014). ‘Laus est ardua dura sustinere: Riprese e originalità nell’elogio sidoniano di Narbona (carm. 23, 37–96)’, Il calamo della memoria 6: 189–203. (2016). ‘Sidonio Apollinare, carm. 23.101–166: Una “proposta paideutica”?’, Lexis 34: 425–44. Sarantis, A. (2009). ‘War and Diplomacy in Pannonia and the Northwest Balkans during the Reign of Justinian. The Gepid Threat and Imperial Responses’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 63: 15–40. (2010). ‘The Justinianic Herules: From Allied Barbarians to Roman Provincials’, in F. Curta, ed., Neglected Barbarians (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 32). Turnhout: Brepols, 361–402. (2016). Justinian’s Balkan Wars: Campaigning, Diplomacy and Development in Illyricum, Thrace and the Northern World A.D. 527–65 (ARCA 53). Prenton, UK: Francis Cairns. Šašel, J. (1979). ‘Antiqui barbari? Zur Besiedlungsgeschichte Ostnoricums und Pannoniens im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert nach den Schriftquellen’, in J. Werner and E. Ewig, eds., Von der Spätantike zum frühen Mittelalter: Aktuelle Probleme in historischer und archäologischer Sicht. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 125–39. Savino, E. (2017). Ricerche sull’Historia Augusta. Naples: Naus. Saylor Rodgers, B. (1981). ‘Merobaudes and Maximus in Gaul’, Historia 30: 82–105. Scardigli, P. (1973). Die Goten: Sprache und Kultur. Munich: Beck. Schaarschmidt, C. (1862). Johannes Saresberiensis nach Leben und Studien, Schriften und Philosophie. Leipzig: Teubner. Schaff, P. and H. Wace. (1979). Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus (A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd ser. 3). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Schanz, M. and C. Hosius. (1922). Geschichte der römischen Litteratur bis zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian, Vols. I–II (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 8). Munich: Beck. Scharf, R. (1991). ‘Bemerkungen zur Amalergenealogie des Cassiodor’, Klio 73: 612–32. (1992). ‘Der Spanische Kaiser Maximus und die Ansiedlung der Westgoten in Aquitanien’, Historia 41: 374–84.

304

Bibliography

(1993). ‘Iovinus – Kaiser in Gallien’, Francia 20: 1–13. (1996). Spätrömische Studien: Prosopographische und quellenkundliche Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des 5. Jahrhunderts nach Christus (Mannheimer historische Forschungen 9). Mannheim: Palatium Verlag. Schipke, R. (2013). Das Buch in der Spätantike: Herstellung, Form, Ausstattung und Verbreitung in der westlichen Reichshälfte des Imperium Romanum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schirren, C. (1858). De ratione quae inter Iordanem et Cassiodorem intercedat commentatio. Diss. Dorpat. Schlumberger, J. (1974). Die Epitome de Caesaribus: Untersuchungen zur heidnischen Geschichtsschreibung des 4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Munich: Beck. (1985). ‘Die verlorenen Annalen des Nicomachus Flavianus: Ein Werk über Geschichte der römischen Republik oder Kaiserzeit?’, in Bonner HistoriaAugusta-Colloquium 1982/1983 (Antiquitas, Reihe 4: Beiträge zur HistoriaAugusta-Forschung 17). Bonn: Habelt, 305–29. (2000). ‘Review of Festy, M. 1999. Pseudo-Aurélius Victor: Abrégé des Césars (Collection des Universités de France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres’, Antiquité tardive 8: 397. Schmidt, L. (1888). ‘Paulus Diaconus und die Origo Gentis Langobardorum’, Neues Archiv 13: 391–4. Schmidt, P. L. (1975). ‘Das Corpus Aurelianum und S. Aurelius Victor’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften Supplement 15: 1583–676. (1988). ‘Zu den Epochen der spätantiken lateinischen Historiographie’, Philologus 132: 86–100. (1989a). ‘Carminius’, in R. Herzog, ed., Restauration und Erneuerung: Die lateinische Literatur von 284 bis 374 n. Chr. (Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike 5). Munich: Beck, 131–2. (1989b). ‘Origo Patavina’, in R. Herzog, ed., Restauration und Erneuerung: Die lateinische Literatur von 284 bis 374 n. Chr. (Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike 5). Munich: Beck, 187. Schmidt, P.-L. (1998). ‘Granius Licinianus’, Der neue Pauly 4: 1206. Schmidt-Wiegand, R. (1981). ‘Carbonaria silva’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 4: 341–2. Scholz, S. (2015). Die Merowinger (Kohlhammer-Urban-Taschenbücher 748). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Scholz, U. W. (1994). ‘“Annales” und “Historia(e)”’, Hermes 122: 64–79. Schönfeld, M. (1911). Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Völkernamen. Heidelberg: Winter. Schottenius Cullhed, S. (2015). Proba the Prophet: The Christian Virgilian Cento of Faltonia Betitia Proba. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Schreckenberg, H. (1972). Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter. Leiden: Brill. Schulz, F. (2017). ‘Die Chronik des Johannes Malalas, das Chronicon Paschale und ein obskurer Palimpsest’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 201: 85–96.

Bibliography 305 Schwartz, E. (1907). ‘Eusebios (24)’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften 6: 1370–439. (1940). Vigiliusbrief: Zur Kirchenpolitik Iustinians, Vol. II (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse 1940). Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schwartz, J. (1978). ‘À propos du vocabulaire religieux de l’Histoire Auguste’, in Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1975/1976 (Antiquitas, Reihe 4: Beiträge zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung 13). Bonn: Habelt, 187–93. (1983). ‘Jordanès et l’Histoire Auguste’, in Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1979–1981 (Antiquitas 5). Bonn: Habelt, 275–84. Schwarz, W. F. (2009). Paulus Diaconus: Geschichte der Langobarden = Historia Langobardorum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Seeck, O. (1883). Q. Aurelii Symmachi quae supersunt, Vol. I (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Auctores antiquissimi 6). Berlin: Heinemann. (1894a). ‘Aetius’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften 1.2: 702–3. (1894b). ‘Alexander, Sulpicius’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertums­­­­­­ wissenschaften 1.2: 1446. (1894c). ‘Ammianus’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften 1.2: 1845–52. (1906). ‘Zur Chronologie und Quellenkritik des Ammianus Marcellinus’, Hermes 41: 481–539. (1909). ‘Virius Nicomachus Flavianus’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften 6: 2506–12. (1910). ‘Frigeridus (2)’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften 7.1: 102. (1916). ‘Iovinus’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften 9.2: 2012–14. (1919). Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr.: Vorarbeit einer Prosopographie der christlichen Kaiserzeit. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung. (1920). Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, Vol. V: VI. Valentinian und seine Familie. VII. Die Auflösung des Reiches. Berlin: Siemenroth. Seel, O. (1961). C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii rerum gestarum, Vol. I: Bellum Gallicum (Biblioteca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana). Leipzig: Teubner. Sehlmeyer, M. (2004). Origo Gentis Romanae: Die Ursprünge des rö­mischen Volkes (Texte zur Forschung 82). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.  (2009). Geschichtsbilder für Pagane und Christen: Res Romanae in den spätantiken Breviarien (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 272). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Shahid, I. (2005). ‘Justinian and the Christianisation of Palestine’, in E. Evangelatou-Notara and T. Maniati Kokkina, eds., Kleterion eis mnemen Nikou Oikonomide. Athens, 373–85. Shalev-Hurvitz, V. (2014). Holy Sites Encircled: The Early Byzantine Concentric Churches of Jerusalem. New York: Oxford University Press.

306

Bibliography

Siebigs, G. (2010). Kaiser Leo I: Das Oströmische Reich in den ersten drei Jahren seiner Regierung (457–460 n. Chr.) (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 276). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Siegmund, F. (2000). Alemannen und Franken. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Silvestre, M. L. (1997). ‘Cassiodoro e l’uso politico della storia’, in M. L. Silvestre and M. Squillante, eds., Mutatio rerum: Letterature, filosofia, scienza tra tardo antico e altomedioevo. Naples: La Città del Sole, 81–114. Simonetti, M. (1961). Tyrannii Rufini opera (CCSL 20). Turnhout: Brepols. Siniscalco, P. (1981). ‘La storiografia nel tardo antico’, in La cultura in Italia fra tardo antico e alto medioevo: Atti del Convegno tenuto a Roma, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, dal 12 al 16 Novembre 1979. Rome: Herder, 99–122. Sirmond, J. (1696). Opera varia. Paris: E typographia regia. Sivan, H. (1990). ‘An Unedited Letter of the Emperor Honorius to the Spanish Soldiers’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 61: 273–87. (2008). Palestine in Late Antiquity. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. (2011). Galla Placidia: The Last Roman Empress (Women in Antiquity). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Skinner, J. (2012). The Invention of Greek Ethnography from Homer to Herodotus. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, C. J. (2005). ‘The Origo Gentis Romanae: Facts and Fictions’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 48: 97–136. Smith, R. R. R. (1990). ‘Late Roman Philosopher Portraits from Aphrodisias’, The Journal of Roman Studies 80: 127–55. Sogno, C. (2006). Q. Aurelius Symmachus: A Political Biography. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (2017). ‘The Letter Collection of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus’, in C. Sogno, B. Storin, and E. J. Watts, eds., Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide. Oakland: University of California Press, 175–89. Somenzi, C. (2009). Egesippo–Ambrogio: Formazione scolastica e cristiana a Roma alla metà del IV secolo. Milan: Vita e Pensiero. Sotinel, C. (1992). ‘Autorité pontificale et pouvoir impérial sous le règne de Justinien: Le pape Vigile’, Mémoires et études de l’Ecole française de Rome: Antiquité 104: 439–63. (2005). Identité civique et christianisme: Aquilée du IIIe au VIe siècle (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 324). Rome: École française de Rome. (2007). ‘The Three Chapters and the Transformations of Italy’, in C. Chazelle and C. Cubitt, eds., The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-Century Mediterranean (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 14). Turnhout: Brepols, 85–120. Speyer, W. (1959). Naucellius und sein Kreis: Studien zu den Epigrammata Bobiensia (Zetemata 21). Munich: Beck. Staab, F. (1976). ‘Ostrogothic Geographers at the Court of Theoderic the Great. A Study of Some Sources of the Anonymous Cosmographer of Ravenna’, Viator 7: 27–64.

Bibliography 307 Stadter, P. (2007). ‘Biography and History’, in J. Marincola, ed., A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 528–40. Starr, R. J. (1987). ‘The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World’, The Classical Quarterly 37: 213–23. Stein, E. (1920). ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte von Ravenna in spätrömischer und byzantinischer Zeit’, Klio 16: 40–71. (1949a). Histoire du Bas-Empire, Vol. I: De l’État romain à l’État byzantin (284– 476). Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. (1949b). Histoire du Bas-Empire, Vol. II: De la disparition de l’Empire d’Occident à la mort de Justinien (476–565). Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Steinacher, R. (2010). ‘The Heruls: Fragments of a History’, in F. Curta, ed., Neglected Barbarians (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 32). Turnhout: Brepols, 319–60. (2016). Die Vandalen: Aufstieg und Fall eines Barbarenreichs. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Stevens, C. E. (1957). ‘Marcus, Gratian, Constantine’, Athenaeum 35: 316–47. Stickler, T. (2002). Aëtius: Gestaltungsspielräume eines Heermeisters im ausgehenden Weströmischen Reich (Vestigia 54). Munich: Beck. (2007). ‘The Foederati’, in P. Erdkamp, ed., The Blackwell Companion to the Roman Army. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 495–514. (2014). ‘Das Geschichtswerk des Olympiodor von Theben’, in B. Bleckmann and T. Stickler, eds., Griechische Profanhistoriker des fünften nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts (Historia Einzelschriften 228). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 85–102. Stroheker, K. F. (1970a). Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (1970b). ‘Princeps clausus. Zu einigen Berührungen der Literatur des fünften Jahrhunderts mit der Historia Augusta’, in Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1968/1969 (Antiquitas, Reihe 4: Beiträge zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung 7). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 273–83. Stroux, J. (1941). ‘Symmachusbriefe’, in E. Stengel, ed., Corona quernea K. Strecker zum 80. Geburtstage dargebracht (Schriften des Reichsinstituts für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 6). Leipzig: K. Hiersemann, 65–74. Suerbaum, W. (1970). Vom antiken zum frühmittelalterlichen Staatsbegriff: Über Verwendung und Bedeutung von Res publica, Regnum, Imperium und Status von Cicero bis Jordanis. Münster: Aschendorff. Swain, B. (2010). ‘Jordanes and Vergil: A Case Study of Intertextuality in the Getica’, The Classical Quarterly 60: 243–8. (2014). Empire of Hope and Tragedy: Jordanes and the Invention of Roman-Gothic History. Diss. Ohio State University. von Sybel, H. (1838). De fontibus libri Jordanis de origine actuque Getarum. Berlin: Nietack. Syme, R. (1968). Ammianus and the Historia Augusta. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1985). ‘Praesens the Friend of Hadrian’, in Studia in Honorem I. Kajanto (Arctos: Acta Philologica Fennica Supplementum 2). Helsinki: The Classical Association of Finland, 275–91.

308

Bibliography

Szidat, J. (1979). ‘Die Usurpation des Eugenius’, Historia 28: 487–508. (2010). Usurpator tanti nominis: Kaiser und Usurpator in der Spätantike (337–476 n. Chr.) (Historia Einzelschriften 210). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. (2012). ‘Historische Fiktion bei Zosimus: Der Tod Valentinians II’, Historia 61: 368–82. Täckholm, U. (1969). ‘Aetius and the Battle on the Catalaunian Fields’, Opuscula Romana 7: 259–76. Taylor, M. (1990). ‘The Etymology of the Germanic Tribal Name Eruli’, General Linguistics 30: 108–25. Teillet, S. (1984). Des Goths à la nation gothique: Les origines de l’idée de nation en Occident du Ve au VIIe siècle (Collection d’études anciennes). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Teitler, H. C. (1985). Notarii and Exceptores: An Inquiry into Role and Significance of Shorthand Writers in the Imperial and Ecclesiastical Bureaucracy of the Roman Empire (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology). Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Testi Rasponi, A. (1911). ‘Un’antica chronaca episcopale ravennate’, Felix Ravenna 3: 123–9. (1924). Codex pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis (Rerum Italicarum scriptores 3.2.1–2). Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli. (1929). ‘Annotazioni sulla storia della chiesa di Ravenna dalle origini alla morte di San Gregorio Magno’, Felix Ravenna 33: 29–49. Thompson, E. A. (1947). The Historical Work of Ammianus Marcellinus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1977). ‘Britain, A.D. 406–410’, Britannia 8: 303–18. Thraede, K. (1968). ‘Sprachlich-stilistisches zu Briefen des Symmachus’, Rheinisches Museum 111: 260–89. Thurn, I. (2000). Ioannis Malalae Chronographia (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 35). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Tilley, M. A. (1997a). The Bible in Christian North Africa: The Donatist World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. (1997b). ‘From Separatist Sect to Majority Church: The Ecclesiologies of Parmenian and Tyconius’, Studia Patristica 33: 260–5. Tönnies, B. (1989). Die Amalertradition in den Quellen zur Geschichte der Ostgoten: Untersuchungen zu Cassiodor, Jordanes, Ennodius und den Excerpta Valesiana (Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 8). Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann. Traina, G. (2018). ‘The Armenian Primary History: A Source of Procopius?’ in G. Greatrex and S. Janniard, eds., The World of Procopius / Le monde de Procope. Paris: De Boccard, 173–83. Trampedach, K. (2001). ‘Die Konstruktion des Heiligen Landes. Kaiser und Kirche in Palästina von Constantin bis Justinian’, in M. Sommer, ed., Die Levante: Beiträge zur Historisierung des Nahostkonfliktes. Freiburg: ArnoldBergstraesser-Institut, 83–110. (2005). ‘Reichmönchtum? Das politische Selbstverständnis der Mönche Palästinas im 6. Jahrhundert und die historische Methode des Kyrill von Skythopolis’, Millennium Jahrbuch 2: 271–96.

Bibliography 309 (2015). ‘Ein neuer Tempel Salomons in Jerusalem? Der Bau der Nea-Kirche (531–543) durch Kaiser Justinian’, Millennium Jahrbuch 12: 155–77. Treadgold, W. T. (2007). The Early Byzantine Historians. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Troncarelli, F. (1989). ‘L’Ordo generis Cassiodororum e il programma pedagogico delle Institutiones’, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 35: 129–34. Tsafrir, Y. (2001). ‘Justinian and the Nea Church’, Antiquité tardive 8: 149–64. Urban, R. (1999). Gallia rebellis: Erhebungen in Gallien im Spiegel antiker Zeugnisse (Historia Einzelschriften 129). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Usener, H. (1877). Anecdoton Holderi: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Roms in ostgothischer Zeit. Leipzig: Teubner. Van Cranenburgh, H. (1969). La vie latine de saint Pachôme traduite du grec par Denys le Petit (Subsidia Hagiographica 46). Brussels: Société des Bollandistes. Van de Wyver, A. (1931). ‘Cassiodore et son oeuvre’, Speculum 6: 244–92. Van Hoof, L. (2016). ‘Maximian of Ravenna: Chronica’, Sacris Erudiri 55: 259–76. (2017). ‘The Omnimoda Historia of Nummius Aemilianus Dexter: A Latin Translation of Eusebius’ Chronography?’, Vigiliae Christianae 71: 199–204. Van Hoof, L. and P. Van Nuffelen. (2013). ‘“No Stories for Old Men”: Damophilus of Bithynia and Plutarch in Julian’s Misopogon’, in A. Quiroja Puertas, ed., The Purpose of Rhetoric in Late Antiquity: From Performance to Exegesis (Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 72). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 209–22. (2017). ‘The Historiography of Crisis: Jordanes, Cassiodorus and Justinian in Mid-Sixth-Century Constantinople’, The Journal of Roman Studies 107: 275–300. Van Nuffelen, P. (2004). ‘Sozomenus und Olympiodorus, oder wie man Profangeschichte lesen soll’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 47: 81–97. (2012a). Orosius and the Rhetoric of History (Oxford Early Christian Studies). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2012b). ‘John of Antioch, Inflated and Deflated: Or, How (Not) to Collect Fragments of Early Byzantine Historians’, Byzantion 82: 437–50. (2013). ‘Olympiodorus of Thebes and Eastern Triumphalism’, in C. Kelly, ed., Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 130–52. (2015a). ‘Not Much Happened: 410 and All That’, The Journal of Roman Studies 105: 322–9. (2015b). ‘Review-Discussion: Greek Secular Historians in Late Antiquity’, Histos 9: ix–xv. (2016). ‘There’s Always the Sun: Metaphysics and Antiquarianism in Macrobius’, in N. Hömke, G. F. Chiai, and A. Jenik, eds., Bilder von dem Einen Gott: Die Rhetorik des Bildes in monotheistischen Gottesdarstellungen der Spätantike (Philologus Supplemente 6). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 127–43. (2017). ‘The Highs and Lows of Biography’, in B. Bleckmann and H. Brandt, eds., Historia Augusta Colloquium Dusseldorpiense. Bari: Edipuglia, 175–87.

310

Bibliography

(2018a). ‘Ecclesiastical Historiography’, in E. Watts and S. McGill, eds., A Companion to Late Antique Literature. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 161–75. (2018b). ‘Zosimus’, in D. Hunter, ed., Brill’s Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill. https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/ brill-encyclopedia-of-early-christianity-online/. (2019). Review of Wallraff et al. 2018, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 70: 148–9. (forthcoming). ‘Stepping Out of the Shadows. Italy in Late Antique Historiography (AD 300–500)’, in J. Wijnendaele, ed., Italy in Late Antiquity. Van Nuffelen, P. and L. Van Hoof (2020a). Jordanes: Romana and Getica (Translated Texts for Historians). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Van Nuffelen, P. and L. Van Hoof, eds. (2020b). Clavis Historicorum Antiquitatis Posterioris. Turnhout: Brepols. Várady, L. (1976). ‘Jordanes-Studien. Jordanes und das Chronicon des Marcellinus Comes. Die Selbständigkeit des Jordanes’, Chiron 6: 441–87. Vasiliev, A. (1950). Justin the First: An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Velázquez, I. (2015). ‘Revisiones de autor y de copistas en las obras de Isidoro de Sevilla. A propósito de la Historia Gothorum’, Antiquité tardive 23: 67–79. Vera, D. (1983). ‘La carriera di Virius Nicomachus Flavianus e la prefettura dell’Illirico orientale nel IV secolo d.C.’, Athenaeum 71: 24–64, 390–426. Verbrugghe, G. P. (1989). ‘On the Meaning of Annales, on the Meaning of Annalist’, Philologus 133: 192–230. Vercruysse, J.-M. (2004). Le livre des règles (Sources chrétiennes 488). Paris: Les éditions du Cerf. Vernadsky, G. (1938). ‘The Spali of Jordanes and the Spori of Procopius’, Byzantion 13: 263–6. Viscido, L. (1992). Ordo Generis Cassiodororum – Excerpta (Università degli studi di Salerno, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità 9). Naples: Arte tipografica. Vitiello, M. (2006a). Il principe, il filosofo, il guerriero: Lineamenti di pensiero politico nell’Italia Ostrogota (Hermes Einzelschriften 97). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. (2006b). ‘“Cassiodoriana”: gli Excerpta Valesiana, l’“aduentus” e le “laudes” del principe Teoderico’, Chiron 36: 113–33. (2008). ‘Last of the Catones. A Profile of Symmachus the Younger’, Antiquité tardive 16: 297–315. (2014a). Theodahad: A Platonic King at the Collapse of Ostrogothic Italy. Toronto: Toronto University Press. (2014b). ‘Theoderic and the Italic Kingdom in Cassiodorus’ Gothic History: A Hypothesis of Reconstruction’, Klio 96: 645–63. (2014c). ‘L’imperatore che amava la storia e i suoi amici: Nicomaco Flaviano e Teodosio fra Annales e Historia Augusta’, in C. Bertrand-Dagenbach and F. Chausson, eds., Historiae Augustae Colloquium Nanceiense (Historiae Augustae Colloquia, N.S. 12). Bari: Edipuglia, 482–503.

Bibliography 311 (2015). ‘Maximinus Thrax, General of Severus Alexander and Victor over the Persians? Some Considerations Concerning the Sources of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus’ Roman History’, Histos 9: 199–219. Vössing, K. (2014). Das Königreich der Vandalen: Geiserichs Herrschaft und das Imperium Romanum. Darmstadt: Von Zabern. (2015). ‘Vandalen und Goten – zu den schwierigen Beziehungen ihrer Königreiche’, in E. Wolff, ed., Littérature, politique et religion en Afrique vandale (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 200). Paris: Institut des Études Augustiniennes. Vossius, G. J. (1627). De historicis Latinis libri tres. Leiden: Maire. Waas, M. (1965). Germanen im römischen Dienst im 4. Jh. n. Chr. (Habelts Dissertationsdrucke Reihe Alte Geschichte 3). Bonn: Habelt. Wagner, N. (1967). Getica: Untersuchungen zum Leben des Jordanes und zur frühen Geschichte der Goten. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. (1979). ‘Bemerkungen zur Amalergenealogie’, Beiträge zur Namenforschung 14: 26–43. (1986). ‘König Theodahad und die amalische Namengebung’, Beiträge zur Namenforschung 21: 433–50. Waitz, G. (1878). Origo gentis Langobardorum (Monumenta Germaniae historica: Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum, 1). Hannover: Hahn. (1880). ‘Zur Frage nach den Quellen der Historia Langobardorum’, Neues Archiv 5: 415–24. Waitz, J. (1865). ‘Die Ravennatischen Annalen als Hauptquelle für die Geschichte des Odovaker’, Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen 4: 81–114. Waldherr, G. (1995). ‘Secundus von Trient’, Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 9: 1277–9. Wallraff, M., J. Stutz, and N. Marinides. (2018). Gelasius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History: The Extant Fragments; With an Appendix Containing the Fragments from Dogmatic Writings (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, N.F. 25). Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Webb, C. C. J. (1965). Ioannis Saresberiensis episcopi Carnotensis Politicratici sive De nugis curialium et vestigiis philosophorum libri VIII, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Weinstock, S. (1932). ‘Tages’, RE 49: 2009–11. Weissensteiner, J. (1994a). ‘Cassiodor/Jordanes als Geschichtsschreiber’, in A. Scharer and Scheibelreiter, eds., Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter. Vienna and Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 308–25. (1994b). ‘Cassiodors Gotengeschichte bei Gregor von Tours und Paulus Diaconus? Eine Spurensuche’, in K. Brunner and B. Merta, eds., Ethnogenese und Überlieferung: Angewandte Methoden der Frühmittelalterforschung (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 31). Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 123–8. Wes, M. A. (1967). Das Ende des Kaisertums im Westen des Römischen Reichs (Archeologische Studieën van het Nederlands Historisch Instituut te Rome 2). ’s Gravenhage: Staatsdruckerei.

312

Bibliography

Whiting, C. (2015). ‘De Viris Illustribus and New Genres for Christian Disputation in Late Antiquity’, in G. Greatrex and H. Elton, eds., Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity. Farnham: Ashgate, 41–52. Wiemer, H.-U. and G. Berndt. (2016). ‘Instrument der Gewalt: Bewaffnung und Kampfesweise gotischer Kriegergruppen’, Millennium Jahrbuch 13: 141–210. Wightman, E. M. (1975). ‘Priscae Gallorum Memoriae: Some Comments on Sources for a History of Gaul’, in B. Levick, ed., The Ancient Historian and His Materials: Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens on His Seventieth Birthday. Westmead: Gregg International, 93–107. Wijnendaele, J. W. P. (2015). The Last of the Romans: Bonifatius, Warlord and Comes Africae. London: Bloomsbury. (2016). ‘Stilicho, Radagaisus, and the So-Called ‘Battle of Faesulae’ (406 CE)’, Journal of Late Antiquity 9: 267–84. (2017). ‘The Early Career of Aëtius and the Murder of Felix (c. 425–430 CE)’, Historia 66: 468–82. (2018). ‘“Dagli altari alla polvere”. Alaric, Constantine III, and the Downfall of Stilicho’, Journal of Ancient History 6: 1–18. Wilkinson, J., ed. (1977). Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Wilkinson, R. (2018). ‘Theoderic Goes to the Promised Land: Accidental Propaganda in Jordanes’s Gothic History?’, Early Medieval Europe 26: 259–81. Williams, M. H. (2006). The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Willis, J. (1963). Macrobii opera (Bibliotheca Teubneriana). Leipzig: Teubner. Wolf, K. B. (1999). Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain, 2nd ed. (Translated Texts for Historians 9). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Wolff, E. (2012). ‘Deux éloges de Narbonne aux IVe et Ve siècle, par Ausone et Sidoine Apollinaire’, Lucida intervalla 41: 115–29. Wolfram, H. (1967). Intitulatio I. Lateinische Königs- und Fürstentitel bis zum Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag.  (1990). ‘Le genre de l’Origo gentis’, Revue belge de philology et d’histoire 68: 189–201. (1994). ‘Origo et Religio. Ethnic Traditions and Literature in Early Medieval Texts’, Early Medieval Europe 3: 19–38. (2003a). ‘Origo gentis (§1–2)’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 22: 174–8. (2003b). ‘Ostgoten’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 22: 344–9. (2006). ‘Westgoten’, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 33: 536–40. (2009). Die Goten von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts: Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie, 5th ed. Munich: Beck. Wood, I. N. (1992). ‘Continuity or Calamity? The Constraints of Literary Models’, in J. F. Drinkwater and H. Elton, eds., Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 9–18. (1994). The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–75. London and New York: Longman. (2015). ‘Universal Chronicles in the Early Medieval West’, Medieval Worlds 1: 47–60.

Bibliography 313 Wood, J. (2012). The Politics of Identity in Visigoth Spain: Religion and Power in the Histories of Isidore of Seville (Brill’s Series on the Early Middle Ages 21). Boston and Leiden: Brill. (2013). ‘Religiones and Gentes in Isidore of Seville’s Chronica Maiora’, in W. Pohl and G. Heydemann, eds., Post-Roman Transitions. Turnhout: Brepols, 125–68. Wood, J. R. (1980). ‘The myth of Tages’, Latomus 39: 325–44. Woods, D. (1995). ‘Julian, Arbogastes, and the Signa of the Ioviani and the Herculiani’, Journal of Military Equipment Studies 6: 61–8. (2006). ‘Libanius, Bemarchius, and the Mausoleum of Constantine I’, in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 13. Brussels: Société Latomus, 428–39. Wynn, P. (1997). ‘Frigeridus, the British Tyrants, and the Early Fifth Century Barbarian Invasions of Gaul and Spain’, Athenaeum 85: 69–117. Wytzes, J. (1977). Der letzte Kampf des Heidentums in Rom. Leiden: Brill. Wyver, A. van de. (1931). ‘Cassiodore et son oeuvre’, Speculum 6: 244–92. Zecchini, G. (1983). Aezio: L’ultima difesa dell’Occidente romano (Monografie / Centro ricerche e documentazione sull’antichità classica 8). Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. (1993). Ricerche di storiografia latina tardoantica. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. (2003). ‘Latin Historiography: Jerome, Orosius and the Western Chronicles’, in G. Marasco, ed., Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century AD. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 317–45. (2009). ‘Ende und Erbe der lateinisch-heidnischen Geschichtsschreibung’, in A. Goltz, H. Leppin, and H. Schlange-Schöningen, eds., Jenseits der Grenzen (Millennium-Studien 25). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 91–105. (2010). ‘L’Historia Augusta da Memmio Simmaco a Paolo Diacono’, in L. Galli Milic and N. Hecquet-Noti, eds., Historiae Augustae Colloquium Genevense in honorem F. Paschoud septuagenarii (Historiae Augustae Colloquia 11). Bari: Edipuglia, 229–38. (2011). Ricerche di storiografia latina tardoantica, Vol. II: Dall’Historia Augusta a Paolo Diacono (Monografie / Centro ricerche e documentazione sull’antichità classica 34). Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. (2016). Storia della storiografia romana (Manuali Laterza 354). Rome: Editori Laterza. Zimmermann, M. (1999). ‘Enkomion und Historiographie: Entwicklungslinien der kaiserzeitlichen Geschichtsschreibung vom 1. bis zum frühen 3. Jh. n. Chr.’, in id., ed., Geschichtsschreibung und politischer Wandel im 3. Jh. n. Chr. Kolloquium zu Ehren von Karl-Ernst Petzold (Juni 1998) anlässlich seines 80. Geburtstags. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 17–56. Zivkovic, T. (2010). ‘An Unknown Source of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’, Byzantino-Slavica 68: 129–43. Zöllner, E. (1970). Geschichte der Franken: Bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts. Munich: Beck. Zottl, C. M. (2004). ‘De origine et actibus getarum. Textanalytische Gedanken zur Gotengeschichte des Jordanes’, Concilium medii aevi 7: 93–123.

Indexes

Index locorum Agathias Histories 2.5.4 87 2.23–7 197 5.9.2 191 4.24.1–30.5 197 Agnellus Book of pontiffs 15, 29 168 31 173 39 168, 173 42 174–8 54 168 62 173 70 166 74 166 78 178–81 79 173 80 167–8 81 167 90 173 94 163, 173 95 168 114 168 119 168 Alexander Romance β/L 1.29–30 256 Ambrose of Milan On the death of Valentinian 2, 24, 23, 27 94 On the death of Theososius 23 98 On Psalm 36 25 98 Ammianus Marcellinus 14.4 197 14.11.28 128 15.5.11 101, 108 15.5.16 101 15.5.33 101

15.9 16.3.2 16.11.8 16.12.23 17.8.2 17.8.3 17.2.1, 4 17.12.11 17.12.21 20.10.2 21.5.3 21.16.19 22.5.4 22.11.4 23.6 25.4.22 27.8.5 27.10.1 28.2.5–9 28.4.14 28.5.1–7 28.6 29.4 29.6 30.3.4–7 30.3.7 30.9.4 30.9.6 31.1–2 31.2 31.3.1–2 31.7.1–3 31.9.1 31.10.1–2 31.10.6 31.14.7 31.16.9 Anonymus Valesianus II 60

314

197 101 87 89 101 108 101 95 89, 95 101 101 128 101 179 197 128 91, 101 92 98 20 83 83 83 83 98 101 42 128 212 196–7 143 99 99 98 86, 88, 101 128 218 154, 205

Indexes 65–73 205 67 154 80 164 79 206 Anthologia Graeca 9.762 138 Arator To Parthenius 39–40 65 Athenaeus Deiphnosophists 11.504E–505B 55 Augustine Homily 352 83 Letter 11*.7 123 93.10.44 264 186 266 On Christian doctrine 2.27 11 On the destruction of the city 2.2 224 Opus imperfectum 1.69 179 The city of God 1.1 224 1.7, 1.28 224 5.26 95 18.54 126 Aulus Gellius Attic nights Pr. 61 5.18 48 14.3 55 Aurelius Victor Caesars 33.3 85 Pseudo-Aurelius Victor Origins of the Roman people 1.5–6 32 Ausonius Discourse of thanksgiving 2 2 Letter 10.21 136 19 136 23 3, 19 Professors of Bordeaux 2 262–3 20 136 21 136 22 29, 136 Bible 1 Kings 31.4 1 Kings 31.4

78 78

1 Kings 16.23 2 Kings 24.12 4 Kings 6.25–7.20 Daniel 6.19 2 Peter 3.8 Boethius Consolation of philosophy 4.6.33 Institutio arithmetica 3.13 Book of pontiffs 34.26 Caesarius of Arles Letter 3 Cassiodorus Chronicle 1177 1185 1193 1255 1262 1339 Exposition of the Psalms 1 87 95 Tripartite history pr. 2.22.5 7.20 Institutions 1.1.1 1.4.3 1.17 1.17.1 1.17.2 1.25.1 1.29 Panegyric of Theoderic 30 Variae pr.11 1.17.3 1.20 1.20.1 1.27 1.27.5 1.30–2 1.45.3 2.3.2 2.3.4 2.37 3.1.1 3.6.1 4.26.1

315 78 78 78 83 243 156 146 175

229 107 224 175 176 175 201 186 186 186 211 111 92 185 189 7, 77 183–9, 191 182, 184, 188 189–93 182 156 217–18 185 154 185 154 156 154 216 216 156 185 142, 185 216 185

316 Cassiodorus (cont.) 6.3.1 6.15 7.11.2 8.2.3 8.3.2–5 8.9.8 8.19.1 9.10.2 9.25.4–6 10.22.2 11.1.19 12.20.4 Cassius Dio 50.24.7 56.18–24 67.14.2 Cato the Elder FRHist 5 F58 Censorinus The birthday book 14.12 15.1 17 Chronicle of 452 52–5 71 77 88 97 102 106 127 136 140 Chronicle of 511 547 596 612 615 617 623 Cicero First Catilinarian 17 On divination 2.50 On the laws 2.59 CIL 6 1782 1783 Claudian Against Rufinus 1.316–17

Indexes 216 154 185 216 204 212 211 204 210–17 137 142, 211, 213 223–5 179 88 259 33 55 55 214 107, 109 121 175 175 126 129 129 129 176 176 107 129 176 129 176 175 69 31 69 50 45 93

Gothic war 363–403 104 414–15 106 414–29 109 568–76 109 On the consulship of Stilicho 1.94–6, 102–3 93 1.239–45 82, 86, 88, 92 Panegyric for Probinus and Olybrius 103–12 98 Panegyric for the fourth consulate of Honorius 311 49 Panegyric for the third consulate of Honorius 65–105 98 Codex Iustinianus 1.1.8 192 12.23.13 126 Codex Theodosianus 11.17.3 126 Consularia Constantinopolitana a. 388 86 a. 399 126 a. 411 119 Consularia Marsiburgensia a. 152 176 a. 422 123 Continuatio Alcobaciensis of Prosper a. 455 229 Continuatio Havniensis of Prosper a. 411 119 a. 451 88 a. 452 176 a. 455 127, 176 a. 590 242 Continuatio Ovetensis of Prosper 10 176 Continuatio Reichenauensis of Prosper 16 175–7 Curtius Rufus 10.1.17–18 256 Cyril of Scythopolis Life of Sabas 73 191 Dexippus FGrHist 100 F5 F27, 29 Dionysius Exiguus Life of Saint Pachomius pr. Ennodius Life of Epiphanius 135 Panegyric 2.13

144 144 156

156 48

Indexes Epigrammata Bobiensia 2–9 68 Epistle of Barnabas 15.4 243 Epitome de Caesaribus 1.28 153 36.2 42 38.8 42 40.20 42 42.7 42 45.5–6 42 48.4 42 48.7 95 48.11–12 38 Eunapius History (ed. Blockley) F58.1 94, 97 Lives of the sophists 2.1.4, 23.1.8 50 Eusebius of Caesarea Chronicle (Armenian translation) Aucher 1818, II, 278–9 256–7 Ecclesiastical history 1.1.4 211 1.1.6 61 3.11–20 253 3.18.4 259–61 3.18.5 257 4.26.9 259 Eclogae propheticae 1 61 Eutropius 9.18 162 10.18.3 218 Evagrius Scholasticus Ecclesiastical history 2.8 179 3.37 188 4.8 180 4.31 191 5.24 7, 11, 79, 184 Excerpta Latina Barbari (ed. Frick 1892) 236 ll. 6–8 254, 256 238 ll. 3–19 256 Expositio totius mundi 3 187 37.174 179 Fasti Vindobonenses Posteriori a. 451 176 Favorinus of Arles F61 61 Festus 30.1 218

317

Florus Epitome 2.30 88 Pseudo-Fredegar Chronicle 2.60 107 4.38 240 4.48 229 4.33 239 4.62 239 4.75 229 Continuation 20 229 Fulgentius On the ages of the world and man 10 256 Gennadius On illustrious men 18 264–7 40 186 42 3 George Syncellus Chronicle (ed. Mosshammer 1984) p. 189 255 p. 419–20 258 Gerontius Life of Melania 14.3 224 Gregory of Tours Histories 1.pr. 168 2.7 176 2.8–9 99–130 2.9 84–93 4.29 229 5.49 92 6.2 229 9.25 242 9.41 111 Gregory the Great Dialogues 2.19.1–3 235 Letter 7.31 10 9.148 232, 238 14.12 232 Heraclitus F56 Herodotus Histories 4.93–7 Pseudo-Hegesippus The Jewish war pr.

56 219 79

318 Pseudo-Hegesippus (cont.) 2.9 77–8 3.5 77 3.16.1, 3.17.1, 5.2.1 78 5.15 78 5.16.1 78 Pseudo-Herodotus Life of Homer 35 56 Hesychius of Miletus BNJ 390 F7 190 Historia Augusta Four tyrants 15.10 218 Life of Aemilianus 22.1–4 179 Life of Alexander Severus 5.2 158 29.2 50 66.3 94 Life of Aurelianus 24.2–9 50 27.6 52 43.4 94 Life of Carinus 3.4 158 Life of Claudius 6.2 142, 144 Life of Heliogabalus 35.1–3 40 Life of Saturninus 8 179 Life of the Two Maximini 1.5–6 159 2 159, 163 3 159–60 4.4–5.1 160 4.4 164 6.8 159 4.1–3 163 7.1–5 163 Hydatius Chronicle (ed. Burgess 1993) 30 (37a) 12 34 (42) 114, 116, 231 35 (43) 224 47 (54) 121 46 (54) 122 49 (57) 175 54 (62) 175 66 (74) 123 67 (75) 175 68 (76) 175 69 (77) 123 77 (86). 230

Indexes 88 (98) 89 (99) 83 (93) 102 (110) 104 (112) 123 (131) 140 (148) 142 (150) 143 (151) 146 (154) 155 (162) 195 (200) I.Cilicie 88 ILS 2947 2948 Isidore of Seville Etymologies 1.51–3 1.41, 1.44 9.2.6 History of the Goths 22 25 25–30, 38 On illustrious men 25 31 33 46

129 129 129 129 129 230 176 129, 229 176 129 175 230 50 50 45, 48 11 48 229 231 229 231 246 246 246–7 240

Jerome Apology against Rufinus 2.23 59 Chronicle Pr. 218 192e 257–8 211e 162 213a 162 219a 139, 253 227m 162 239g 262 296i 158 Commentary on the prophet Ezechiel pr. 224 Epitaphium Paulae 21.5 218 Letter 54.10 220 108.26 61 123.15 107, 114, 118 127.13 224 130.7 224

Indexes Life of Malchus 1 2, 10 On illustrious men pr. 211 132 60–1 81 61 111 3 Preface to the Commentary on the Pentateuch PL 28.151A 51 John Chrysostom On the first letter to the Corinthians 4 56 John of Antioch Chronological history F280 94–5, 98 John Malalas Chronicle 1.8 254 1.13–14 256 2.11 253–4 4.10 253 8.1 255–6 10.48 257–8 17.15 180 16.10 188 16.15 180 18.86 191 18.125 229 John of Salisbury Polycraticus 2.26 55 5.7 57 7.5 56 7.5–6 57 8.2, 8.6, 8.8–9 57 8.11 56 8.12 57–8 8.14–15 57 8.20 57 John the Lydian On the magistracies 2.3 153 Jordanes Getica pr.1–2 218–22 Pr.3 219–20 4 141, 186 5 141 10 78 16 139 19 139 25–8 141 28 139–40, 145 38 141 40 139 42 141

43 58 65 67 76–8 79–81 82 83–8 83 88 90–3 90–103 101 101–9 104 112–13 113 116–38 117 121 123 135 142 151 156 176 178 182 183 194 199 220 222 234 243 249 251 253 254 254–5 260 295 295–303 302–13 313 Romana 51 85–254 85 255 275 276 278 280 281

319 3 139 139 213 214–15 199, 213 141, 145 153 139, 162 161–2 145 212 213 145 139 213 139 16, 197 143–5 141 139, 141 95 213 131–3 224–5 126, 128 139, 141, 153 206 139, 141 108 95 176 139 95 150 95 213 213 141 139 208 201 205 200 198 150 152 243 152 162 162 160 158 162

320 Jordanes (cont.) 294 302 310–18 314–18 345 Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite Chronicle 90 Julian of Toledo History of Wamba 13 Julian Letter (Wright) 14 Misopogon 29.358CD Julius Valerius 1.22 Justin Epitome 20.1.8 Justinian Novellae 6

Indexes 162 162 152 149 148, 150 188 229 218 20 256 33 181

Lactantius On the deaths of the persecutors 3 259 Laterculus Veronensis 13 96 Leo the Great Tractatus 57 186 Lex Salica 17.2 87 Libanius Oration 1.39 190 59.56 219 Liberatus Breviarium 2 12 18 180 Life of Caesarius of Arles 1.20 142 1.21 229 1.34, 2.10 142 Life of Severus of Agde 7 228 Livy pr. 10 74 1.1.1–3 33 1.144.2 31 9.17–19 256 24.17 87

Lucan 10.36–41 Lucretius On the nature of things 4.3–4 Macrobius Saturnalia 1.5.13 1.16.30 1.18.4 5.19.12–14 Marcellinus Comes Chronicle a. 392.1 a. 408 a. 410 a. 414 a. 422 a. 476 a. 452 a. 455 a. 534 Marcellus Acts of Carthage 1.47, 3.155, 3.193 Merobaudes Panegyric 1.F1A l. 11 1.F1B ll. 9–14 1.F2B ll. 11–12, 2.16–23 2.5–15 2.110–20 2.127–4 2.135–6 Michael the Great Chronicle 6.3 Nennius Historia Brittonum pr.

256 211

38 29 29 30 189 107 175, 224 175 123 148, 150 176 175 187 267 156 128 129 129 126 127 127 258 3

Olympiodorus of Thebes (Blockley) F13 109 F17 111, 119 F13–17 112–13 F18 118 F20 121 F43.2 126 F22 175 F24 175 Optatus Against the Donatist Parmenian 1.24.1 267 Ordo generis Cassiodororum ll. 5–8 153–4 ll. 20–2 222–3

Indexes Origin of the Langobards (Waitz 1878) p. 4 l. 17 244 Orosius Histories 2.8.4 83 2.15.5 98 4.11.7 186 5.8.1 98 6.7 65 7.10.3–4 215 7.18.7–8 160–1 7.18.8–19.1–2 160 7.19.1–2 159, 165 7.38.3–4 105 7.38.15 224 7.25.3 101 7.32.10 101 7.35.10 95 7.35.11–12 97 7.35.12 101, 118 7.35.11–21 98 7.37.4 104, 109 7.38.3–4 107, 118 7.39 224–5 7.40.2 175 7.40.3 101, 106–9 7.40.4 109 7.40.4–10 112 7.42.4–5 112 7.40.5–7 112 7.40.7–8 114 7.42.4 117, 119 7.42.11 111 7.43 175 7.43.2–7 175 7.43.14 116 Palladius Dialogue 12.19.6 Lausiac history 54.7 Panegyrici Latini 2(12).8.5 2(12).12.4 2(12).13.3 2(12).20.4 2(12).21.3 2(12).33.1–2 2(12).40.2 2(12).17.1 2(12).33.1–2 2(12).40.2 2(12).44.4–45.1 3(11).13.3, 20.2 4(10).5.6

179 224 218 128 128 128 94 210 128 218 218 128 218 128 128

321

4(10).12.4 128 4(10).18.1 96 9(4).8.1 128 10(2).10.4 85 11(3).5.4 85 12(9).3.2 128 Paschal Chronicle (Dindorf 1832) 38CD 254 250C 258 592A 176 Paul the Deacon History of the Langobards 1.21 240 1.27 229, 235 2.2 236, 244 2.4 236 2.5 236 2.6 236 2.7 235–6, 245 2.7–4.42 234 2.10 229, 236 2.25 235–6 2.32 244 3.9 244 3.9–10 236, 244 3.11–15 244 3.12–13 236 3.21–2 236 3.23 235 3.23–6 236 3.26 232, 243 3.26–7 236 3.27 235 3.28–9 236 3.29 241–2 3.30 235 3.31 235–6, 243–4 3.32 235 3.34–5 236 3.35 235 4.1 235, 243 4.1–2 235, 244 4.9 235 4.10 235, 238, 244 4.11 237 4.15 237 4.15–19 235 4.27 235, 238–9, 244 4.28 237 4.37 238 4.37–8 235 4.40  235, 237, 239–41, 244 5.11–12 234 5.31 235 5.34 235

322 Paul the Deacon (cont.) 5.36 5.46 6.21, 6.35, 6.43–4, 6.58 Paulinus of Nola Letter 3.3 21.1 30 Poem 3 Paulinus Life of Ambrose 30.1 Philo of Alexandria Against Flaccus 41 Philostorgius Ecclesiastical history 11.1 11.2 12.13 12.14 Plato Republic 3.398c–399e 10.596d–e Plautus Fragments 67 Pliny the Elder Natural history 4.100 6.5 6.7 Pliny the Younger Panegyric 54.2 Pseudo-Plutarch Life of Homer 55a Polybius Histories 25.30 Pomponius Mela 3.49 Priscian The institutes of grammar 9.51 Priscus Histories (Blockley) F10 F30 F31 F53

Indexes 235 244 235 13 79 266 19 88, 92 179 95 98 126 126 57 58 30 96 33 140 210 56 179 78 16, 82 230 175 230 230

Procopius Buildings 1.1.20–78 2.1.4–2.3.26 5.6 6.2.22 Wars 1.2.16–18 1.2.24–9 1.3.23 1.5 1.5.22–35 1.6.1–2 1.10.6 3.2.2 3.2.22–4 3.2.23 3.3.4 3.3.33 3.4 3.4.7 3.4.15 3.5.18 4.6.5–13 4.9.5 4.9.5–9 5.12.42 6.14.1 8.5 Prosper Tiro Book of epigrams 95 Chronicle 1230 1240 1243 1250 1257, 1259 1273, 1276 1278 1282 1288 1290 1298 1303 1311–18 1322 1364 1365 1375 Protadius FHistLA 5 T1–3 Quintilian Institutes of oratory 1.10.13

191 188 191 192 211 211 230 197 230 230 196 142, 224 224 104 175 106 176 111 176 104 197 191 192 192 144 196 266 107 224 113, 117, 119, 122 118 175 175 123 123 126 129 129 129 243 129 129 176 175 69

57

Indexes Quintilian (cont.) 3.21.9 10.1.32 Romanus Melodus Hymn 54 Ruricius of Limoges Letter 2.33, 2.35 Rufinus Ecclesiastical history 11.3 11.31 11.32–3 Sallust The conspiracy of Catiline 51.38 Salvianus On the government by God 6.72, 75, 83 7.12.50 Seneca Letter 58.31 To Helvia 19.6 Servius On Aeneid 1.243–7 1.373 5.233 6.638 6.861 7.445 8.406 8.506 10.388 11.743 Severus of Antioch Select letters 4.3 Sidonius Apollinaris Letter 1.5 1.8.2 2.7 2.9.5 3.1.3 3.3.9 4.3.8 4.17 4.22 5.9.1 5.10 7.9.2

186 74

191 229 98 95 98

69 121 108 55 179 34 49 28 28 28 28 28 69 3 65 180 132 132 262 51–2 229 135 135 99 2, 7, 26, 135 122 262 135

7.12.3 8.11 8.3.1 9.14.7 Panegyric of Avitus 207 231 233–5 Panegyric of Majorian 210–18 358–9 Poem 23 5.385–430 Socrates Ecclesiastical history 1.1.2 3.3.3 3.22.11 3.23.3–6 5.6.2 5.11.2 5.25 6.pr.6–9 7.10 7.12.10 Sophocles F 534 Sozomen Ecclesiastical history 6.9.3 7.2.1 7.4.1–2 7.13.1 7.22.2 7.24.3–7 9.4–5 9.6–10 9.11–16 9.11–15 9.11.2–12.3 9.11.4 9.12.2 9.12.3 9.12.4 9.12.5–13.1 9.12.6 9.12.7 9.13.1 9.13.2 9.13.3 9.14.3 9.14–15 Strabo Geography 5.212 7.1.3

323 128 262 50 65 99, 119 128 129 129 94 134–6 229 218 179 218 218 91, 97 91, 97 95, 98 218 224 138 31 92 91, 97 91, 97 91, 97 95 98 224 105 105 112 109 112, 116 112 114, 118 113 113 116–17 114 111, 117 115 119 122 119 33 96

324

Indexes

Strabo (cont.) 12.543, 12.552, 13.608 33 Suetonius Life of Augustus 23 88 Life of Domitian 15.1 259 Sulpicius Severus Chronicle pr.1–4 7 2.14.3 11 2.50.4 98 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 40.950 50 Symmachus Letter 1.2 3, 19 1.3 3, 19 1.4 3, 19 1.12 153 1.107 81 3.10–16 68 3.11.3 68 3.12 50 3.88 50 4.18.5 18, 65–6 4.32.2 66–7 4.36.2 66 5.39 81 7.18–19 50 9.13 65 9.27 81 9.110.2 73 Oration 2.29 218 Panegyric for Valentinian II 2.24 48, 67 Relatio 3.1–2 45 Tacitus Agricola 10 Annals 1.60–6 13.55 Germania 1 33 Tegernsee Collection Letter 231 Tertullian Apology 5.4

78 88 96 196 96 192–3 259

Theodore Lector Ecclesiastical history epitome 522 180 Theodoret of Cyr Ecclesiastical history 5.24 98 Theophanes Chronicle AM 5945 176 AM 5948 176 AM 5961 230 AM 6009 180 AM 6017 180 AM 6050 229 Tyconius Commentary on the Apocalypse 1.5.28–30 266 1.11.132 266 4.9.7–10 266 Valerius Maximus Memorable deeds and sayings 8.7.8 57 Varro On Latin language 5.143 31 Velleius Paterculus History of Rome 2.117–20 88 Verecundus Commentary on the Song of songs 1.4 266 Vergil Aeneid 1.243–4 33 1.243–7 33 4.513–14 30 5.584 159 7.665 69 10.468 160 Georgics 1.482 132 4.151 30 Victor of Tunnunna Chronicle a. 455 175 a. 517, 521 180 Victor of Vita History of the Vandal persecution pr.1 211 1.2 104 1.13 230 1.51 230 2.39, 3.3 229

Indexes Pseudo-Zachariah Ecclesiastical history 7.6 Zonaras Extracts of history 222–4 Zosimus New history 1.73.1, 3 2.12.3 2.54.1 4.3.3 4.13.4 4.33 4.47.1 4.51.1–3

188

85 42 42 42 41 42 97 86 93

325 4.53 4.54.3 4.58 5.26.3 5.31.4 5.36.1 5.41.4–7 6.2.1 6.2–6 6.3.1 6.3.3 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4–5 6.5.1 6.5.2–3 6.5.2

91, 94, 97 95 98 104, 109 112 127 224 112 105 107, 109, 112 108 116 117 112 112–13 112 112 113–15, 117

Index nominum et rerum Ababa  159 Ablabius  9, 18, 137–45, 193, 208 Acacius  181 Academy, philosophical school  55 Ad duas Lauros  175 Adaloald  232, 239 Adam  148 Adrianople  78 Adriatic Sea  230 Aelian  61–2 Aeneas  33–4, 213 Aethicus Ister  204 Aetius  99–103, 105, 125–30, 156 Africa  49, 130, 182, 187, 229–30, 265 Agapitus of Rome  224 Agathias  100, 198 Agde  226–31 Agilulf  232, 234, 238–40 Agnellus of Ravenna  15, 166–81 Agnellus of Trent  232, 235, 243 Agrippa  77–8 Agroecius  121 Alamanni  88–9, 91, 97–8, 111, 115 Alans  104, 106–10, 114, 118, 129, 159, 196, 229 Alaric I 105, 113, 127, 143, 223–5 Alaric II  138, 206 Alethius, Latinus Alcimus  136, 262–3 Alexander Severus  158–9 Alexander the Great  235, 252, 255–6 Alexandria  171, 179–81, 191, 254 Allobichus  113, 118 Alps  107 Amalaberga  205

Amalafrida  205 Amalasuintha  194, 199–200, 211, 214 Amals  196, 199–203, 210–17, 221–3 Ambrose of Milan  36, 38, 77, 79, 94 Ammianus Marcellinus  2, 7–8, 16, 20–1, 25, 27, 39, 41–2, 44–5, 71, 74–5, 82–3, 88–9, 95, 99–103, 139, 144, 155, 163, 196–7, 208, 237 Amorica  129 Ampsivarii  86, 96 Anastasius, emperor  182, 199 Anastasius the Librarian  10 Anazarbus  171, 179–81 Anecdoton Holderi See Ordo generis Cassiodororum Anicii  156 Annales pontificium  49 Annals  45, 48–9, 66, 172–4 Anonymous after Dio  43 Anonymous historian of Rome  17–18, 40, 73–6 Anonymous of Padua  7, 15, 29, 32–5, 64 Anonymus Valesianus II  37, 164–5, 172–3, 204 Antenor  33–4 Antioch  191 Aoricus  213 Aphrodisias  50 Apollonius of Tyana  50–3 Apology, Christian  21, 253, 264–7 Appian  27, 72, 187 Appius Nicomachus Dexter  46, 156 Aquileia  86, 171, 177 Arator  11 Arbogast  82, 86, 91–7, 99 Arcadius  84

326

Indexes

Areagni  206 Arianism  164–5, 264 Ariaricus  213 Aristotle  68–72 Arles  111–20, 129 Armenia  197, 250–1, 256–7, 260 Arras  129 Arverni  121–2 Aspar  126 Assalamus  255 Assyria  255–6 Asterius  123–4 Athala  213 Athalaric  194, 196, 198–200, 203, 211–17 Athanaric  213 Athanasius of Alexandria  189, 264 Athaulf  121–2, 170, 175 Athens  69–71, 135–6, 144, 255 Attila the Hun  129, 208–9, 229 Audience of historiography  18–24, 171, 203 Audofleda  205 Augustine  56, 193, 264–7 Augustus  42, 71, 152–3, 162–3 Aurelius Victor  8, 27, 73 Aurelius Victor, Pseudo  15, 20, 29, 32–5, 147, 162 See also Epitome de Caesaribus Ausonius  3, 12, 19, 21, 26, 134–6, 262–3 Authari  233, 235, 237, 241–2, 244 Avars  229 Avianius Symmachus  3, 19–20 Avienus  3 Axius Paulus  136 Babylonians  77–80, 255 Baetica  123 Balearics  230 Baptism  239–40 Barcelona  59 Bauto  91, 94 Bavaria  232, 235 Bede, the Venerable  10, 12, 189, 233, 235 Bemarchius  190, 192 Berossus  187 Bethlehem  60 Beticus  226 Bible  11, 78, 167, 192–3, 226, 264 Biography  2–3, 7, 10, 19–20, 41, 54, 147, 156, 166, 174, 177, 184, 190, 196, 216, 222 Bishops  16, 18, 78, 166–81, 192, 224, 226, 232, 235, 238, 243, 247, 264–5 Black Sea  219 Boethius  146, 153–7, 195, 216, 222 Book of Pontiffs, Rome  10, 170, 233 Bordeaux  262–3 Breviarium  8, 147

Brevarium Vindobonense  19, 34 Blondus, Flavius  145 Bonfinis, Antonius de  145 Bonifatius  125, 129–30 Braulio of Zaragoza  247 Britain  78, 112, 114 Brittany  114 Bructeri  96 Bruttium  194 Bruttius  13, 250–61 Bucellarius  127 Burgundians  118, 129 Buruista  213 Caecilianus  267 Caesar, Julius  7, 20, 64–7, 71, 118 Caesar, Imperial title  90–1, 111–12, 116, 125–6, 159, 175, 182 Campus Martius  127, 175 Candidus, historian  5 Candius, Pantaleon  145 Caracalla  160 Carinus  42 Carmen contra paganos  36 Carminius  7, 28–31, 34, 64, 136 Carolingians  24, 204 See also Middle Ages, Western Carpilio  127 Cassiodorus  6, 9–11, 14–16, 18, 22–6, 128, 132, 137–45, 147–57, 160, 162, 182–225, 243 Cassius Dio  26, 131–3, 147, 208–9, 259–61 Castalius  203, 219–20 Castinus  123–4 Catholicism  11, 23–4, 156, 164, 205, 232, 238–9, 264–7 Cato  29, 33, 154, 156–7 Censorinus  214 Cethegus  222 Chamavi  96 Charietto  90 Charisius  54 Charles Martel  229 Chatti  96 Childebert  241 Christianity  25, 38, 48, 59, 64, 99, 154, 159, 164 See also Arianism, Catholicism, Church, Donatism, Three Chapters Chronica, genre  12, 166–81, 184–5 Chronica Caesaraugustana  247 Chronicles  12, 26–7, 59–62, 129, 152, 167, 169, 172–3, 177, 180–1, 186, 199–200, 206, 210, 233–8, 240, 246–7, 250 Chronicle of Zuqnin  258 Chronicle of 452  103 Chronicle of 565  2

Indexes Chronicle of 724  237, 258–60 Chronicle of 741  237 Chronicle of 754  237, 243 Chronicle of 846  258 Chronography  13, 60, 169, 250, 254, 258 Chronological history  23, 169 Church, building  176, 179, 191, 224–5, 239 Church council  229, 232, 243, 264, 266–7 Cicero  69–70, 73–4, 135 Circulation of historiography  12–18, 20–1, 37, 65, 75, 147, 151, 169, 203–8, 247 Claudian  16, 89 Claudius  78 Clemens, Flavius  256–61 Clermont-Ferrand  100, 121 Clovis  89, 205 Cniva  212–13 Cologne  86–7, 93, 95 Comes  111, 125, 129–30 Comes Africae  126, 129 Comes domesticorum  86, 123–4, 127 Comes Hispaniarum  123 Comes rei militaris  86 Comes sacrarum largitionum  64 Comets 176, 235 Cominianus  28 Common source of the Continuation of Marcellinus Comes and Jordanes  152, 208 Consentius  9, 14, 16, 134–6 Constans, emperor  263 Constans, Flavius  111–18 Constantine Porphyrogenitus  39 Constantinople  9, 15–17, 22–3, 26, 60, 77, 126, 137–48, 151–3, 155, 162, 166, 180, 182, 189–93, 195, 203, 209, 220, 224, 230, 232, 239, 244 Constantine the Great  126, 138, 162, 190 Constantine III, usurper  101–5, 108–21 Constantius II  26, 41, 128, 163, 190, 263 Constantius III  117–20, 122, 175, 177 Consul  12, 19, 36, 47, 49–50, 134, 146, 154, 178, 194, 199–203, 251, 257–9, 262–3 Consularia caesaraugustana  247 Consularia constantinopolitana  12 Consularia italica  12, 172, 204, 208 See also Ravenna Annals Consularia, genre  12, 27, 167–8, 170, 194, 199–200 Continuatio Havniensis of Prosper  234, 237 Continuation of Marcellinus Comes  2, 182 Cordoba  227 Corippus  22 Corsica  230 Court, royal and Imperial  14, 23, 46–7, 64, 91, 93, 111, 113, 115–16, 148, 181, 194, 199–203, 206, 232–3, 237–9

327

Creation  148, 167, 170, 187, 194, 201 Cura palatii  126, 134 Cyprian, bishop of Toulon   78 Dacia  214–15 Dalmatia  34 Danae  253–5 Danube  106, 144 Dara  188 Dardanus  121 Darius  255 Decimius Rusticus  111, 115, 117–22 Demosthenes  134 Dexippus  42, 100, 139, 142–5, 169, 208, 212 Dexter  13–15, 21, 25, 59–63, 73 Dido  30 Dio Chrysostom  139 Diocletian  87, 162, 243 Diogenes of Cyzicus  136 Dionysius of Alexandria  139 Dionysius of Halicarnassus   71–2 Dionysius the Periegete  190, 208 Dioscorus of Alexandria  179 Domesticus  86, 111, 124, 126–7 Domitian  214–15, 250–3, 257–61 Domitilla, Flavia  250, 252–3, 257–61 Donatism  10, 264–7 Doxography  54 Durostorum  126, 128 Earthquake  169–71, 177, 179–80 Easter  232, 239, 243–5 Ecclesiastical history   5, 10, 22, 25, 185, 195 Edobichus  111, 113–15, 119 Egeria  190 Egypt  255 Eleusius  190 Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte  2, 5 Ephesus  56–7 Epigrammata Bobiensia  68 Epitome de Caesaribus  8, 17, 39, 41–2, 76, 149, 152–3, 163 Esau  266 Ethnogenesis See Traditionskern Ethnography  139, 195–8 Etruscans  28–31, 69–72 Eucherius  190 Eugenius  36, 47, 50, 59, 82, 95–8 Eunapius  39, 41–5, 100, 208 Euric  138 Eusebius of Caesarea  9, 19, 50, 61–2, 184, 187, 250–61 Eusebius of Nantes  19 Eustathius of Epiphaneia  23, 104, 137, 169

328

Indexes

Eutharic  164–5, 194–5, 199–203, 211, 214 Eutropius  8, 17, 45, 73, 100, 152, 162, 208 Eutyches  155 Eutychianus of Cappadocia  136 Eutychianus, author  190 Excerpts  5, 15, 39, 43, 60, 65, 147, 154, 172, 195, 204, 222, 226, 234 See also Anonymous after Dio Excerpta latina barbari  251–2, 254, 256 Excerpta salmasiana II  39, 41, 43 Exuperantius, Julius  136 Ewin  236 Fastenquelle of Socrates  5 Faunus  256 Favius  9, 18, 131–3, 193, 209 Favorinus of Arles  61–2 Federates  109, 116 Felix  129 Festus  8, 16, 26, 45, 73, 149–53, 161, 187, 237 Filimer  140 Flavius Josephus  11, 77–80, 184 Florus, Epitome   2, 30, 88, 149–50, 152, 161 Fragmenta Tusculana  251 Franks  24, 81–130, 200, 205, 235–6, 240–2 Fredegar, Pseudo-  10 Frigeridus, Renatus Profuturus  5, 7–9, 15–16, 21, 24–5, 81, 84, 99–130 Friuli  238 Fulgentius  12, 101 Gaidoald,  238–9 Galerius  164 Galicia  230 Galla Placidia  170–1, 175–8 Gapt  213 Gaudentius  126–8 Gaul  7, 15, 24, 64–7, 84–98, 103, 105–10, 115, 118–20, 122–4, 134–6, 143, 211, 229–31, 262–3 Geberich  213 Geiseric  191, 209, 228–31 Genealogy  196, 199, 201, 213–17, 222 Genius  31 Gennadius of Marseille  184, 264 Genobaudes  82, 86–9 Germania  86, 91, 107, 195–6 Geography  7, 22, 96, 103, 131, 137–45, 148, 183, 186–9, 204, 207–9 George Cedrenus  39, 43 George Syncellus  250–1, 258–60 Gepids  209 Germanicus  64 Gerontius  102, 111–20 Geta  159

Getae  219 Gisulf of Friuli  238 Goar  104, 109, 118, 122 Godigisel  104 Gordian III  160 Goths  89, 122, 129, 137–56, 158–65, 194–225 Grammarians  22, 28, 32, 34, 54, 134, 146 Granius Flaccus  29 Granius Licinianus  29 Gratian, emperor  42 Gratian, usurper  109, 112 Greek language  9, 11, 13, 17, 20, 23, 26–7, 30–4, 39, 51–3, 59, 61–3, 68–72, 74–5, 83, 100, 132–9, 143, 152, 158, 169–70, 173, 177, 181, 194, 198, 216, 250, 253–4 Gregory of Tours  6, 10, 15, 24–5, 81–130, 155, 167, 233, 235–6, 241 Gregory the Great  232–3, 235 Gunderic  231 Gunthiaris  118, 122 Hagia Sophia  190–1 Hartke- and Leoquelle  36, 39–45 Hasdings  108 Hasmoneans  78 Hegesippus  253 Hegesippus, Pseudo-  11, 14, 77–80 Heliconius  169 Heliogabalus  160 Helion  125 Heracles  256 Heraclius  87 Hérault  229 Hermanaric  143–4, 209, 212 Hermenegild  228 Hermes  31 Herodotus  135–6 Heruls  137, 143–5 Hesychius of Miletus  169, 190 Hierocles  50 Historia  48–9, 168, 185 Historia Augusta  7, 17, 20–1, 24, 39–40, 71, 142, 147, 151, 156, 159–65 Homer  55–6, 135 Honorius, emperor  103, 105–6, 112–30, 175–8, 224 Honorius, Julius  189, 190, 208 Horapollon the Elder  136 Huneric  228–31 Huns  106, 126–8, 143, 196–7, 227–31 See also Attila the Hun Hydatius  122, 230 Ibas of Edessa  232 Ibba  205

Indexes Illyricum  33, 182 Indiction  234, 243–5 Ioviani  87 Iovinus, usurper  104, 108, 117–22 Isaac  77 Isidore of Seville  12, 14, 16–17, 34, 189, 204, 227, 231, 237, 240, 246–7 Israel  11, 77–80, 227 Iuthungi  129 Italy  7, 9, 15, 22, 28–35, 82, 96, 103, 113–17, 126, 130, 137, 143–4, 147–8, 182–3, 198–200, 202, 205, 230, 232–3, 237, 239, 241–5, 251 Jacob  266 Jerome  10, 12, 14–16, 19, 21, 25–6, 38–9, 44, 56, 59–63, 77, 147, 150, 152, 160, 167–70, 179–82, 184, 193, 208–9, 214–15, 242, 250, 260, 262 Jerusalem  14, 78, 183, 189–93 Jews, Judaism  11, 77–80, 259 John, evangelist  239 John, usurper  124–7, 175, 177 John Chrysostom  56 John Malalas  5, 169, 180, 250–7, 260 John Nikaiotes   180 John of Antioch  5, 41, 169, 254 John of Biclar  23, 235, 242, 247 John of Salisbury  37, 53–8 Jordanes  3, 6, 9, 15–17, 23, 34, 78, 95, 128, 131–3, 137–45, 147–8, 148–53, 157–65, 182, 186–7, 192, 195–225, 231, 233, 240 Jovian  44, 162 Judah  227 Julia Mamaea  158 Julian, emperor  262–3 Julian of Toledo  24 Julius Africanus  250–1 Julius Valerius  61, 237 Jupiter  31, 33 Justin, historian  204, 208 Justin I  199 Justin II  174 Justinian  23, 166, 171, 174, 182–3, 190–3, 195 Justus  113 Juvenal  20 Kohlenwald  86–7 Kronos  254 Lactantius  164, 193 Lake Maeotis  137, 143–4 Latium  69, 254 Laudicius  179 Legitimacy  24, 97, 122, 200–3, 217

329

Leo Grammaticus  43 Leoquelle  39–45 Leovigild  227–8 Letters   37, 46–51, 65–9, 75–6, 131–2, 145, 192–3, 208, 211–12, 217, 224–5, 235 Libanius  263 Liburni  34 Liguria  235 Liutprand  233 Liuva  228 Livy  3, 20, 38, 51, 65–6, 74–5, 156 Local history  34 Langobards  9, 22, 144, 232–45 Lorsch  10 Lucania  194 Lucentius  12 Lupercus of Beirut  136 Lycurgus  69 Lyons  112 Macedonia  256 Macrinus  160, 164 Macrobius  15, 21, 28–31, 36, 38, 146 Maffei  145 Magister equitum  86, 90, 93, 113, 125–6 Magister militum  86, 90–1, 94, 111, 123–5 Magister officiorum  111, 117, 194, 199 Magister utriusque militiae  111, 125, 175 Magnentius  3 Majorian  230 Malchus  100 Manetho  187 Marcellinus Comes  8, 22–3, 26, 147, 149–53, 182–93, 204, 208 Marcomer  82, 86–9, 92–3, 95–6 Marcus, usurper  109, 112 Maria  191 Marius Maximus  20 Maronite Chronicle  258 Mars  208 Martial  135  Martyrs  227, 257–9 See also Persecution Matociis, G. de   148 Maurice, emperor  241 Maximian of Ravenna  8, 12–13, 15–16, 22–3, 166–81 Maximinus Daia  164 Maximinus Thrax  146, 155, 158–65 Maximus of Zaragoza  9, 13–14, 16, 240, 246–7 Maximus, Magnus, usurper  81–2, 86–7, 90, 92, 105 Maximus, Spanish usurper  111–17, 123 Medes  255–6 Melito of Sardis  259

330

Indexes

Menander Protector  100 Merobaudes  99, 128 Merovingians  88 Miaphysitism  171, 180–1 Micca  159 Michael the Great  258 Middle Ages, Western  54, 203 See also Carolingians Milan  64 Mincia  119 Minervius  64, 66 Moesia  128, 144, 158 Monks  166, 179–81, 191, 226, 232–3, 243 Montpellier  229 Monza  239 Moors  197 Moses  10, 203 Mundiacum  118 Nannenus  86, 90 Narbonne  121, 228 Narrative chronicle  12, 23, 167, 169–70 Naucellius  8, 14, 18, 20, 29, 40, 68–74 Nedao  209 Nennius  3 Neoplatonism  21, 54 Nero  165 Nerva  163 Nestorius  155 Nicomachus Flavianus  6, 8, 14, 16–18, 21, 36–59, 73–4, 76, 156 Nicomachus Flavianus the Younger  46 Non  232, 238, 242, 244 Nori  129 Notary  81, 126 Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae  190 Occila  127 Odoacer  202, 205 Oium  140 Olympiodorus of Thebes  41, 99–103, 105–6, 109, 111–17 Optatus  267 Optila  127 Oral traditions  197, 199, 212, 215, 237 Ordo generis Cassiodororum  146–8, 151–7, 195–6 Origen  56, 219 Origo Constantini imperatoris  34 Origo gentis, genre   9, 198, 215–16, 221–2 Origin of the Lombards  22, 34, 233–4 Orion  136 Orosius  8, 12, 17, 25, 71, 78, 98, 100–2, 105, 107–10, 147, 149, 152–3, 155, 160–5, 167–8, 170, 179–81, 184–8, 204, 215, 224–5

Ostrogotha  142, 144, 212–13 Ostrogotho  205–6 Ostrogoths  22, 138, 142–3, 194–225 Ovid  135 Pacianus  59–60 Padua  32–5 Paganism  21, 64, 259–61 Pandateria  259 Panegyric  15, 129, 131–3, 183, 191–3, 200, 203, 205, 218, 221–2, 262–3 Pannonia  94, 104, 143, 240, 244 Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai  190 Parmenian  264–7 Parthians  159, 161–2, 255 Paschal Chronicle  177, 250–2, 254–5, 258, 260 Patras  166 Patricians  123, 128, 146, 154 Paul the Deacon  15, 22, 155, 204, 232–45 Paul the Silentiary  190 Paulinus of Nola  18, 20–1, 136 Pavia  238 Persecution  164–5, 250–3, 259–61, 266 See also Martyrs Perseus  252, 254–5 Persia  26, 161–2, 198, 255–6 Peter, apostle  223 Peter the Patrician  39, 43–4 Peter, treasurer  224 Petronius Probus  3 Petronius, novelist  54, 57, 135 Philipp the Arab  160 Philo of Alexandria  11 Philosophy  37, 50, 53–7, 136, 154, 216 Philostorgius  101 Philostratus  37 Phocas  136 Photius  102, 105, 113, 116 Pilgrim of Bordeaux  190 Plague  236 Plato  53–8 Platonius  136 Plautus  135 Pliny the Elder  65–7, 140, 193 Poetry  3, 19, 34, 38, 135, 234, 247, 256 Polybius  72 Pomponius Mela  139, 186, 208 Pontic Sea  140–2, 258 Ponza  257–61 Pupienus  160 Praefectus Aegypti  168, 179–81 Praefectus urbi  19, 36–7, 46–50, 59, 64 Praetorianus  126 Praetor  154 Praetorian prefect  111, 119, 121, 126, 211, 224, 263

Indexes Praxagoras  190, 192 Priests  30, 119, 179, 181 Princeps clausus  94 Priscian  16, 22, 146 Priscus  100, 103, 139, 148, 153, 208–9 Proba  3 Probus, Marcus Valerius  28 Procopius  100, 148, 187, 190–3, 196–7 Promotus  93 Propontis  126 Prosper Tiro  12, 84, 103, 107, 122, 184, 208–9, 224 Protadius  7, 14, 17–18, 20, 24, 35, 64–7, 71, 73–4, 76 Proterius of Alexandria  180 Ptolemy  139, 190, 193, 208 Pyrenees  106, 111, 231 Quadi  89 Quaestor  37, 45–50, 194 Quintilian  53, 57 Quintinus  86, 90, 92 Radagaisus  104, 107–9 Raetia  104, 106 Ravenna  116, 119, 131–3, 166–81 Ravenna Annals  167–8, 172–4, 204 Rebbecca  266 Reccared I  23, 226 Reccared II  226 Respendial  104–6, 108–9 Rhetoricians  22, 54, 74, 136 See also Panegyric Rhine  82, 86–7, 95–8, 104–12, 115, 231 Ricomer  91 Rogatus  264–7 Rome  8, 22, 26, 29, 64, 70, 73–6, 78, 82, 101, 104–7, 125, 135, 146, 150, 162–4, 191–2, 202, 223, 255–6, 263 Rome, bishop of  10, 166, 239 Romulus  213–14 Roterius  9, 15, 23, 226–31 Rothari  233 Rubellius Blandus  2 Rufinus of Aquileia  9, 11, 77, 98, 100, 208, 219, 264 Sabines  28–31 Sabinianus  123 Sacred history  12, 25, 77–80 Saeculum  214–15 Sallust, historian  69–70, 82, 135 Sallustius, brother of Iovinus  121 Sallustius, Flavius  262–3 Salustius, senator  226

331

Samaritans  191 Samnites  69–72 Saracens  197 Sardinia  230 Sarmatians  95 Sarus  112, 115, 122 Saturn  254 Scandza  140, 209 Scholae palatinae  126 Scythia  126, 137–45 Sebastianus  121 Secundus of Trent  9, 13, 15, 22, 232–45 Seleucus of Emesa  136 Seneca  56, 135 Senate, senators  36, 43, 46, 54, 73–6, 217, 222, 226, 253 Septimania  226–31 Servius  28 Severus Acilius  3 Severus of Agde  226–31 Short description of Jerusalem  190 Sicily  49, 230 Sidonius Apollinaris  14, 99, 122, 128, 132, 134–6, 262 Silings  108 Sirus  90 Slavs  240 Smyrna  135 Socrates of Constantinople  10, 149, 152, 184, 195 Socrates, philosopher  53–6 Solinus  136, 186, 208 Solomon  191–2 Solon  69 Sozomen  10, 101, 119, 122, 184, 195 Spain  9, 15, 17, 23, 103, 105–17, 123–4, 199, 226–31, 246–7 Spali  140 Squillace  194 Staphylius  136 Stilicho  86, 92, 105, 107, 111 Strabo  208 Strategius   181 Style, literary  69, 75, 83, 161, 218, 221–2, 227, 229, 246–7 Suavi  128 Suebi  105–10, 114, 118, 123, 227 Suetonius  18, 20, 61, 65, 136, 259 Sulpicius Alexander  5, 8–9, 15–16, 24–5, 81–98, 100 Sulpicius Severus  12, 27, 98, 164, 167, 169 Symeon the Logothete  39, 43 Symmachus, Quintus Aurelius  14, 19, 49–50, 54, 64–76, 146, 156 Symmachus, Q. Fabius Memmius  49–50

332

Indexes

Symmachus the Younger  6, 8, 14–18, 22, 24–5, 45, 103, 139, 142, 146–56, 195, 208, 222–3 Syriac  169, 237, 250–1, 257–8 Sunno  82, 86–9, 92–3, 95–6 Tacitus  7–8, 48, 82, 100, 135, 163, 196, 208, 223 Tages  31 Tarquinius Superbus  256 Tegernsee  145, 192–3 Terence  135 Tertullian  193 Themistius  263 Theodahad  194, 211, 224 Theodelinda  232, 235, 237–8, 244–5 Theodore Lector  10, 23, 180, 195 Theodore of Mopsuestia  232 Theodore Scuthariotes  43 Theodoret of Cyr  10, 184, 195, 232 Theoderic Strabo  213 Theoderic the Great  9, 133, 138, 146–7, 151, 154–5, 157, 164–5, 172, 174, 194–25 Theodosius, count  77 Theodosius, pilgrim  190 Theodosius, prefect  180–1 Theodosius I  10, 21, 36–8, 40, 46–7, 64, 82, 91, 94–5, 97, 152, 163, 175, 263, 264 Theodosius II  46–7, 125–7, 138 Theophanes Confessor  177, 180–1 Theophilus of Edessa  5 Theophylact Simocatta  100 Thessalonica  125 Theudebert II  236, 240 Theuderic II  236, 240 Thiudigoto  205–6 Thiudimir   213 Thomas, treasurer  224 Thorismud   213 Thrace  82, 93–4, 143, 158, 163, 213 Thraustila  127 Three Chapters  166, 171, 192, 195, 232, 235 Tiberius II  242 Timothy IV of Alexandria  171, 178–81 Timothy Aelurus  180 Titus  191 Torques  159 Totila  226 Toulouse  24 Traditionskern  212, 215–16

Trajan  205 Trent  232–45 Trier  92–3, 108–9, 121–2, 124 Troilus  190 Troy  33 Tyconius  11, 264–7 Ulfilas  122 Valamer  213 Valence  115, 121 Valens  82, 163, 263 Valentinian I  42, 82, 128, 263 Valentinian II  82, 91–7 Valentinian III  46–7, 101, 125–30, 170, 175–8, 208 Valerius Maximus  53–4, 57 Vandals  24, 104–10, 114, 118, 123, 191, 200, 208, 227–31 Varro  19, 135 Varus  83, 87–8 Veneti  33–4, 132, 235 Venus  33 Vergil  7, 30, 32, 135 Victor, Flavius  86, 90 Victor of Tunnunna  243, 246–7 Victor of Vita  230 Victorianus  51–3, 75–6 Vienne  93–5, 113, 115, 117 Vigilius of Rome  166 Visigoths  9, 23–4, 129, 138, 142–3, 200, 209–10, 226–31, 246–7 Vitigis  194 Vivarium  182, 194 Volaterranus, Raphael  145 Vossius  145 Wamba  24 Xanten  86, 96 Xenophon  55 Zaragoza  111 See also Maximus of Zaragoza Zeno  163, 202, 208 Zeus Picus  253–4 Zonaras  39, 43–4 Zosimus  8, 39, 41–5, 83, 101, 107–9, 111–17, 208