Viator: Volume 7 [Reprint 2020 ed.] 9780520331952

Citation preview

VIATOR Medieval and Renaissance Studies VOLUME 7

VIATOR M E D I E V A L A N D R E N A I S S A N C E STUDIES Volume 7 (1976)

PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE CENTER FOR MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

U N I V E R S I T Y OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY, LOS ANGELES, LONDON 1976

VIATOR Medieval and Renaissance Studies

Henrik M. Bimbaum Patrick K. Ford Henry Ansgar Kelly

Richard H. Rouse Speros Viyonis, Jr Lynn White, jr

BOARD OF EDITORS:

Milton V Anastos William J Bouwsma William M. Bowsky Robert J Brentano Carlo Cipolla C Warren Hollister Stephan G Kuttner

Gerhart B. Ladner Philip Levine Lauro Martines tWilliam Matthews Charles Muscatine Gilbert Reaney Eleanor Searle

EDITORIAL CONSULTANTS:

Samuel G. Armistead (Pennsylvania) John F Benton (California Institute ofTechnology Morton W Bloomfield (Harvard) Felix Gilbert (Institute for Advanced Study) Sholomo D. Gotein (Institute for Advanced Study) Paul Oskar Kristeller (Columbia) Roberts Lopez (Yale)

fMillard Meiss (Institute for Advanced Study) Ricchardo Picchio (Yale) Meyer Schapiro (Columbia) Albeit Seay (Colorado College) Kenneth M. Setton (Institute for Advanced Study) Joseph R. Strayer (Princeton) Brian Tiemey (Cornell)

Manuscripts should be addressed to the Editors, Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024, U.S.A. Viator is open to contributions from all sources. The Editors are particularly interested in considering intercultural and interdisciplinary articles. Texts, illustrations, maps, diagrams, musical examples, and the like, will be published when they are necessary to documentation. Articles that have been, or soon will be, printed elsewhere in any language in substantially the same form are not acceptable. Inquiries concerning subscriptions and earlier volumes should be addressed to the University of California Press, 2223 Fulton Street, Berkeley, California 94720, U S.A. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Copyright © 1976 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN: 0-520-03136-9 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 71-U1417

CONTENTS

On Roman Attitudes toward Barbarians in Late Antiquity

1

G E R H A R T B. L A D N E R

Ostrogothic Geographers at the Court of Theodoric the Great: A Study of Some Sources of the Anonymous Cosmographer of Ravenna

27

FRANZ STAAB

The Earlier Medieval Plague in the British Isles

65

JOSIAH COX RUSSELL

Ships, Shipping, and the Implications of Change in the Early Medieval Mediterranean

79

B A R B A R A M. K R E U T Z

A Study in Feudal Politics: Relations between Fulk Nerra and William the Great, 995-1030

111

B E R N A R D S. BACHRACH

The Ideal Depiction of Charlemagne in La Chanson de Roland

123

JOHN D. N I L E S

The Indian and Pseudo-Indian Passages in Greek and Latin Astronomical and Astrological Texts

141

DAVID P I N G R E E

The Role of Alfred of Sareshel (Alfredus Anglicus) and His Commentary on the Metheora in the Reacquisition of Aristotle

197

J A M E S K. O T T E

The Origins of the European Nobility: The Problem of the Ministeriais

211

JOHN B. F R E E D

Some Observations on the Origins of the Flemish Bailiff (Bailli): The Reign of Philip of Alsace LOUIS M. DE G R Y S E

243

vi

CONTENTS

The Privileged Villeins of the English Ancient Demesne

295

M A R J O R I E K E N I S T O N MC INTOSH

Rural Population and the Tuscan Economy in the Late Middle Ages

329

D U A N E J. OSHEIM

In Quest of the Vera Ecclesia: The Crises of Late Medieval Ecclesiology

347

SCOTT H. H E N D R I X

The Death of Merlin in the Chronicle of Elis Gruffydd

379

P A T R I C K K. F O R D

Scholastic Opposition to Humanism in Pre-Reformation Germany

391

JAMES H. O V E R F I E L D

Changing Assumptions in Later Renaissance Culture

421

WILLIAM J. BOUWSMA

Calvinist Thomism

441

J O H N P A T R I C K D O N N E L L Y , S.J.

Viator Style Sheet

456

ON ROMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD BARBARIANS IN LATE ANTIQUITY

by Gerhart B. Ladner

Lynn White bene merenti magis quam emerito adflavit Romam meliore iuventa CLAUDIAN

The reaction of the Romans to the transformation of their empire, brought about by the barbarians in late Antiquity, has been often described. If the subject is taken up once more here, it is in order t o investigate with some precision Roman views of barbarian tribes as land-hungry rebels against an empire of which the Romans believed themselves to be not only the divinely ordained founders, but also the eternal renovators. A reexamination of these ideas can lead to a better understanding of the confrontation between Roman-Christian reform ideology and the new ethnicsocial pressures of the early medieval West. 1 The present study will concentrate on the Germanic barbarians, the most important for the West, and will be focused in the fourth century, perhaps the most transitional among several transitional centuries between Antiquity and the Middle Ages; but it will also illustrate a few earlier and later patterns of Roman-Germanic relations, backward to the age of Marius and Caesar and forward to that of Justinian, Isidore of Seville, and Gregory the Great. The so-called Great Barbarian Invasions were set into motion about 375 by the attack of the Huns against the Goths, by the ensuing demands of the Visigoths for land within the borders of the Roman Empire, and by their admission in 376 to certain parts of the diocese of Thrace, most probably in the province of Moesia Inferior. Up to 378, Ammianus Marcellinus is our principal source, and it is interesting to observe his ambivalent attitudes toward the Romans as well as the barbarians.

1 In this sense this article may serve as prolegomena to a second volume (in preparation) of The Idea of Reform (Cambridge, Mass. 1959; rev. ed., Harper Torchbooks 1967); see also "Religious Renewal and Ethnic-Social Pressures as Forms of Life in Christian History," in Theology of Renewal 2 (Montreal 1968) 328ff. I am grateful to Professor Milton Anastos and Professor Mortimer Chambers for several bibliographical references.

2

G E R H A R T B. L A D N E R

He considers the reception of the Goths into the empire as a dangerous act of self-destructive folly. 2 On the other hand, he castigates the perfidious manner in which two Roman generals exploited the vital needs of the newly admitted Goths, for which no proper provisions had been made: indeed the generals, Lupicinus and Maximus, distributed dogs to the barbarians for food and demanded in return for each dog a Gothic slave; among these slaves there were some of the Gothic nobles. 3 This trade in foodstuffs and slaves was as much a source of profit to the Roman commanders as it was exasperating to the hungry barbarians. When they attempted to obtain food by force, Lupicinus in retaliation had the guards of their leaders, Alavivus and Fritigem, killed, while these two chieftains were his guests at Marcianopolis. Yet Fritigern, under the pretext of mediating between the incensed Gothic people and the Romans, escaped from the banquet together with other invited Goths and incited the entire Visigothic nation to war." Not only did other Gothic war bands, who had been settled independently of Fritigern's people, farther to the south in the neighborhood of Adrianople, now rebel against the Romans and join with Fritigern,5 but the Gothic forces were also increased by those compatriots whom they had had to sell as slaves earlier, as well as by dediticii and freed captives, and by Roman miners who wished to escape the pressure of public exactions. 6 We have here a clear testimony for the blending of internal and external rebellion against, or within, the Roman Empire.7 Ammianus Marcellinus's attitude here as elsewhere is both objective and judgmental. Faced by a combination of catastrophic events, he does not blame the internal rebels for attempting to escape their economic burden any more than he blames the Goths for reacting violently against the perfidious and provoking way in which they had been treated. Ammianus certainly leaves no doubt that he does not approve of Lupicinus's actions at Marcianopolis or of the inhuman, corrupt, and inconsistent Roman policy toward the Goths in general. And yet, he sees the barbarians as aggressors. He seizes every opportunity to describe their wildness and

2

Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum lib. 31.4.5f., ed. C. U. Clark 2.1 (Berlin 1 9 1 5 ) 5 6 5 f . Ibid. 31.4.9, Clark 5 6 6 . 4 Ibid. 31.5.1-8, Clark 5 6 7 f . 5 T h e s e Goths, too, had been treated very badly; cf. ibid. 31.6.1-4, Clark 5 7 0 f . 6 Ibid. 31.6.5f., Clark 5 7 1 . The dediticii in the strict sense of the term were a class of people whose surrender to victorious Romans was accompanied by allotment of land in half-free tenure. 7 S e e also below pp. 15 and 2 4 , about the Bacaudae as alleged "imitators" and allies of the barbarians. I refer here once and for all to Arnold Toynbee's conception of the internal and external proletariats as phenomena of the breakdown and disintegration of civilizations. Cf. A.. Toynbee, A Study of History 1 (London 1 9 5 5 ) 4 1 f . , 5 3 f f . , and with particular reference to the Roman Empire and the barbarians 4 . 4 4 0 f f . , 5 . 2 1 0 f f . The reader will no doubt recognize the extent to which the interpretation of the events given in this article is consonant with, or dissonant from, Toynbee's work. Cf. also R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge, Mass. 1 9 6 6 ) esp. 192ff., chap. 6: "The Outsiders," and the important, though not conclusive, paper of S. Mazzarino, "Si puo parlare di rivoluzione sociale alia fine del m o n d o antico?" Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull' alto medioevo 9 (Spoleto 1 9 6 2 ) 4 1 Off. 2

ROMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD BARBARIANS destructiveness.8

3

He also l e a v e s n o d o u b t t h a t e v e n at t h i s late d a t e it w o u l d b e t h e

v o c a t i o n o f R o m e — i f she w a s n o t h a n d i c a p p e d b y m o r a l c o r r u p t i o n — t o b e n d t h e s t i f f n e c k s o f savage a n d f i e r c e p e o p l e s , t o f u n c t i o n as l a w g i v e r , as bringer o f l i b e r t y and p e a c e , t o act as m i s t r e s s a n d q u e e n o f t h e w o r l d . 9 t h e basic V i s i g o t h i c p r e d i c a m e n t :

He s e e m s t o be u n m o v e d b y

their desire f o r a secure territory t o s e t t l e i n ,

t h o u g h h e gives a r e m a r k a b l e a c c o u n t o f t h e i r a p p e a l s t o t h e e m p e r o r V a l e n s , s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e b a t t l e o f A d r i a n o p l e o f 3 7 8 . F r i t i g e r n ' s first appeal w a s t r a n s m i t t e d b y a Christian ( p r o b a b l y A r i a n ) priest, w h o c a m e t o t h e e m p e r o r ' s c a m p t o g e t h e r w i t h s o m e o t h e r e n v o y s o f l o w l y s t a t u s . T h e G o t h i c c h i e f t a i n n o w d e m a n d e d t h a t he a n d his p e o p l e b e g r a n t e d Thracia

sola,

m e a n i n g in all p r o b a b i l i t y n o t t h e w h o l e d i o c e s e ,

b u t m e r e l y t h e p r o v i n c e o f Thrace ( w h i c h w a s s i t u a t e d t o t h e s o u t h o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y a l l o t t e d parts o f t h e T h r a c i a n d i o c e s e ) w i t h its l i v e s t o c k and p r o d u c e ; t h i s r e q u e s t w a s a c c o m p a n i e d b y a p r o m i s e n o t t o a t t e m p t a n y f u r t h e r e x p a n s i o n and t o k e e p perpetual peace. The e m p e r o r d o u b t e d the sincerity o f the promises, and the request f o r p e a c e f u l p o s s e s s i o n o f s u c h a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n o f R o m a n t e r r i t o r y in t h e Balkan peninsula was refused.10

A s e c o n d peace overture was likewise

under the pretext that the ambassadors held n o r a n k . "

repulsed,

However, the attempt was

r e p e a t e d b y Fritigern o n c e m o r e i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e t h e b a t t l e , a n d it w o u l d s e e m t h a t V a l e n s at t h e last m o m e n t w a s w i l l i n g t o n e g o t i a t e ; b u t f o r w a r d e l e m e n t s o f t h e a r m y c o u l d n o l o n g e r b e restrained a n d t h e b a t t l e o f A d r i a n o p l e w a s j o i n e d . 1 2

It

8 S e e , for instance, Ammianus (n. 2 above) 31.5.8, also 6.7, and 8.6-9, Clark 568, 571, and 576f., concerning the savage devastations and murders perpetrated by the Goths. Most f a m o u s is Ammianus's description of the Huns and their savage habits and deeds, 31.2.1-12, Clark 5 5 7 f f . »See especially ibid. 14.6.3ff., Clark 1 ( 1 9 1 0 ) 12f.; for this text cf. also n.50 below. The barbarian devastations were real enough, but Ammianus's j u d g m e n t was influenced also by traditional simplifying views concerning the barbarians and by his inability to recognize that the roles of the R o m a n s and barbarians in the world were no longer the same as in republican and early imperial times. Cf., for instance, F. Paschoud, Roma aeterna (Rome 1967) 4 2 f f . ; J. Vogt, "Kulturwelt und Barbaren: Zum Menschheitsbild der spatantiken Gesellschaft," Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (1967) 1.27f.; P. M. Camus, Ammien Marcellin (Paris 1967) 116ff. F o r the f o u r t h century in general see A. Alfoldi, A Conflict of Ideas in the Late Roman Empire (Oxford 1952) chap. 5 : " T h e Late Classical Ideal of Culture in Conflict with the Illyrian Military Spirit." 10

Ammianus Marcellinus (n. 2 above) 31.12.8f., Clark 587. Ibid. 31.12.12, Clark 5 8 8 . 12 Ibid. 31.12.14-17, Clark 5 8 8 f . We do not know if these peace offers were meant sincerely. The first one was accompanied by Fritigern's suggestion that the imperial army should display its strength close to the Gothic warriors in order to curb their eagerness for war. Because of Fritigern's wiliness (see above), the emperor and his advisors may have feared an ambush or a ruse in view of approaching Gothic reinforcements; Ammianus seems to imply something like this. E. A. T h o m p s o n , "The Visigoths f r o m Fritigern to Euric," Historia 12 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 105ff., assumes that Fritigern w a n t e d to make peace with the Romans at the expense of the ordinary tribesmen; I do not see any evidence for this view in the sources. The latest study on the battle itself is by T. S. Bums, " T h e Battle of Adrianople: A Reconsideration," Historia 22 (1973) 336ff.; for the epochal effects of the battle, cf. J. Straub, "Die Wirkung der Niederlage bei Adrianopel auf die Diskussion iiber das Germanenproblem in der spatrdmischen Literatur," Philologus 95 ( 1 9 4 2 ) 255ff. 11

4

G E R H A R T B. LADNER

ended with the victory of the Goths and the death of Valens. Ammianus Marcellinus closes his history here, as far as the western part of the empire is concerned, and therefore does not relate the famous settlement with the Goths, made by Theodosius the Great in 382, through which they were established as foederati

on the right bank

of the lower Danube, no doubt in Moesia Inferior, and perhaps in Scythia. 1 3 The series of events, recalled here after Ammianus Marcellinus,

14

was compressed

into one sentence by Jerome in his Chronicle: Gens Hunorum Gothos vastat, qui a Romanis sine armorum depositione suscepti per avaritiam Maximi ducis fame ad rebellandum coacti s u n t . 1 5 Jerome uses the key term rebellare, which will engage our attention later. The events themselves were similar in their general outline to earlier and later encounters between Romans and Germans, in which demands for land were refused or frustrated by the Romans. This is, of course, not to say that Germans or other barbarians had never been or were never to be granted land within the Roman Empire. Far from it. The circumstances of such grants as well as of refusals will be discussed presently. The earliest firm data concerning Germanic demands for Roman territory are those connected with the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutons at the end of the second century B.C. — though there may be some truth in Livy's assertion" that the Gallic invasion of the early fourth century B.C. had also been preceded by barbarian requests for land. The Periocha of Livy's sixty-fifth book preserves the information that the Senate refused the demand of the Cimbric ambassadors for a fixed domicile (sedes)

and lands (agri), on which they might settle. 17

The Epitome

of Livy by

Florus is somewhat more detailed. It reports that the demand was first addressed to the Consul Silanus in the field, and only then to the Senate, also that the barbarians offered a military alliance in return. 1 8 Plutarch in his Life of Marius, speaking of a later phase of the war, tells of an insult to the Cimbri which fits only too well into the picture: before the battle of Vercelli the Cimbri sent an embassy t o Marius, 13 The main sources for this treaty are the panegyric of Pacatus (cf. below pp. 19ff.), several of ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Themistius's panegyrics, and the Consularia Constantinopolitana, Minora 1, MGH Auct. ant. 9 (Berlin 1892) 2 4 3 ; c f . A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602 2 (Norman, Ok. 1964) 1099 n. 46. 14 The story has been retold often in modern times from Gibbon to this day; Gibbon criticizes, praises, and above all uses Ammianus constantly, as no historian of the later fourth century can fail to do. The most recent documented accounts of Roman-Gothic relations under Valens and Theodosius I are in the works of E. Stein, Histoire du bas-empire 1.1 (Paris 1959) 185-195; 1.2 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 517-521; and Jones 1 (1964) 152-158, and 2.1098f. ls

Jerome, Chronicorum canonum liber (Eusebi Chronic.), ed. A. Schöne, Griech. Christi. Schriftsteller (Berlin 1866; repr. 1967) 198. 16 Livy,Histor. lib. 5.36. 17 T. LiviPeriochae . . . , ed. O. Rossbach (Leipzig 1910) 76f. 18 Florus, Epitomae de Tito Livio 1.38 (3.3). In addition, Florus here makes a pertinent remark concerning the connection between the confrontation with barbarians and the social struggles in Rome: "Sed quas daret terras populus Romanus agrariis legibus inter se dimicaturus?" This is perhaps an allusion to the wars over the Italian franchise.

ROMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD BARBARIANS

5

asking for some part of the country, for some place for themselves and their brethren, meaning the Teutons, who had previously been defeated at Aix in Provence; thereupon Marius scoffingly answered that their brethren had already been provided by the Romans with land which they would possess forever; the Cimbri understood that he was referring to those who had been slain and buried, and they threatened that revenge would come from themselves and from the Teutons, too, whereupon Marius paraded before them the latter's captive leaders in chains." Equally relevant is Caesar's account of his dealings with Ariovistus, the foremost Germanic leader of his time, at the beginning of the Gallic Wars.20 Only a short while before, Ariovistus had been acknowledged as rex of the Suebi and as amicus of the Roman people by the Senate. Soon thereafter he had been called by the Gallic tribe of the Sequani to intervene in their struggle with the likewise Gallic Haedui, who were allied with Rome in the close relationship of hospitium et amicitia. From this call he derived a claim to rule over non-Roman Gaul and promised Caesar a reward (bribe or tribute?) and military help, if he would suffer him to do so. 2 1 However, Caesar rejected Ariovistus's claims and offers: Rome would not abandon its allies, and Roman claims in Gaul were much older than those of the Germans. These claims according to Caesar were of a twofold nature: they were based on the defeat of Gallic tribes two generations earlier, but even more so on the decision then made by the Roman Senate to allow vanquished Gaul to live freely under its own laws. " This latter argument could still serve against Ariovistus, but was soon voided by Caesar's conquest of all Gaul and its romanization — a process which here as elsewhere did allow for a certain amount of autonomy and above all of wealth and local power of local chieftains. 23 The romanization of Gaul was so successful that in late Antiquity it was, militarily, politically, and culturally one of the most important parts of the Roman Empire. 24 19

E. Valgiglio, ed. Plutarcho, Vita di Mario 2 4 (Florence 1 9 6 7 ) 113f. Caesar, De bello Gallico 1.43-45. 21 Ibid. 1.44; cf. 1.31-33, especially for the speech of Diviciacus, chieftain of the Haedui, according to which they were linked to Rome by both hospitium and amicitia. For the Haedui see also below, p. 18. 22 Ibid. 1.45: " . . . neque suam neque populi Romani consuetudinem pati, uti optime meritos socios desereret, neque se iudicare Galliam potius esse Ariovisti quam populi Romani . . . quodsi antiquissimum quodque tempus spectari oporteret, populi Romani iustissimum esse in Gallia imperium; si iudicium senatus observari oporteret, liberam debere esse Galliam, quam bello victam suis legibus uti voluisset." 23 The text from Caesar, quoted in the preceding note, shows very distinctly some of the nuances of Roman rule: it was possible for the conqueror to fall back either on his imperium or on variously graded concessions of autonomy. The prominent position allowed by the Romans to faithful local chieftains emerges most impressively from archaeological evidence, in remnants of splendid centers of government and of an upper class Roman way of life. To mention only two excavations of relatively recent date, I may refer to the Magdalensberg in Carinthia, probably the ancient capital of Noricum, and to Fishbourne near Chichester, i.e., Noviomagus. Cf. Rudolf Egger, Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Magdalensberg (Klagenfurt 1 9 4 9 f f . ; repr. from Carinthia I 140ff.); B. Cunliffe, Excavations at Fishbourne 1961-1969, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 26 and 27 (Leeds 1971). 20

24

Cf. below pp. 15ff., o n the Gallic panegyrics of the late third and fourth centuries.

6

G E R H A R T B. L A D N E R

The confrontation between Caesar and Ariovistus in Gaul and the subsequent history of Roman Gaul are particularly significant in this context, because it is possible to observe here clearly a dominant, if not the dominant, attitude of the Romans toward the barbarians: they were willing gradually to extend the benefits of Roman rule to subject peoples or allies, but not inclined on the whole to share Roman territory with unconquered and independent peoples from outside the empire. When admission of such peoples, as already suggested, did occur in the imperial period — sporadically at first and massively toward the end — this, as will soon be seen, was the result either of Roman self-interest or of barbarian pressure. An especially pathetic story about the refusal of land to barbarians is told by Tacitus in his Annals. It concerns the tribe of the Ampsivarii (or Amsivarii), who were seeking land on the lower Rhine during the reign of Nero. The land in question lay vacant, but was reserved for the use of the Roman army. The Frisians had occupied it for a while and begun to cultivate it, but had been expelled by the Romans. It was after this that the Ampsivarii attempted to take possession of the same territory after having been chased from their seats by the Chauci. The Ampsivarian leader, Boiocalus, could boast of fifty years' faithful military service to the Romans — indeed, his loyalty had resulted in his being taken prisoner by Arminius during the Cheruscan rebellion. He now submitted his people to Roman dominion, but he joined to this offer an impassioned appeal for continued possession of those vacant lands. Tacitus narrates the tenor of his plea to the Roman general Avitus and the latter's reply. Though no doubt partly or wholly formulated by Tacitus, these speeches are characteristic of the Germanic and Roman points of view, as seen by an almost contemporary and very perspicacious historian. How much land, Boiocalus is said to have asked, was to remain reserved for occasional use by the soldiers and their sheep and cattle? If, he continues, the land already thus occupied was to serve for that purpose, albeit in the midst of hungry men, let it be so, for there remained vast deserted stretches, the perpetual availability of which ought not to be preferred to the urgent fulfilment of the needs of a befriended people. In fact, Boiocalus notes, these regions had previously been inhabited by other Germanic tribes. The heavens belonged to the gods, but the earth to mortal men, and masterless lands were common property. Boiocalus, in Tacitus's account, then invokes the sun and stars and asks whether they wanted to continue to look down on empty earth or not rather cause the sea to flood it in retaliation for such abuse." Avitus seemed to have been impressed by the appeal which the Germanic chieftain made on behalf of his people, but the essence of his reaction seems to have been that it was necessary for the Ampsivarii to suffer and obey the commands of their betters; it was the will of the gods that the Romans freely decide what to give and what to take away, without tolerating any judges over their actions other than themselves. This according to Tacitus was Avitus's public answer to the Ampsivarii, but privately he promised land to Boiocalus personally, as to a friend of Rome. But the barbarian

" Tacitus, Annales

13.55.

ROMAN A T T I T U D E S TOWARD BARBARIANS

7

spurned this offer as a traitor's reward, and Tacitus credits him with a noble sentence: "We have no land, then, where we could live, but land on which to die we cannot lack." The final outcome was that the Ampsivarii remained homeless ethnic flotsam, at best guests, at worst paupers or enemies among foreign tribes; in the process many perished through violence, others were captured and treated as spoils 26

of war. These examples of Roman-barbarian confrontations — and other ones not here discussed" — have certain features in common. Entire barbarian tribes petition for land; the request is refused by the Romans; finally force decides the issue in one way or another. If the constancy of the pattern might lead one for a moment to suspect a literary topos, such an assumption could hardly be entertained for long. Each case is so deeply embedded in very different factual circumstances that it must reflect historical realities rather than a merely literary tradition. Furthermore, the pattern — while it is recurrent — is not exclusive. Long before Valens, and more effectively Theodosius, had admitted the Goths into Thrace or Moesia as foederati, contingents of barbarians had settled on the Roman soil. Such settlements have been thoroughly discussed by modern historians of Rome from Seeck28 to Alföldi, 29 and in greater detail by Stauffenberg, 30 MacMullen, and Millar.31 Already Agrippa had transported the Ubii to the left bank of the Rhine, where Cologne was later to rise as Colonia Agrippinensis, and Roman emperors of the first and second centuries had followed his example both on the Danube and the Rhine. 32 Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus had settled Marcomanni and other Germanic and non-Germanic tribes as peasants and potential recruits in Gaul, in the Danubian provinces, and elsewhere, a practice continued by the emperors of the third century and by Constantine the Great, who had recognized Danubian Goths as 26

Ibid. 13.56; especially Boiocalus's retort: "Deesse nobis terra in vitam, in qua moriamur, non potest." For the Ampsivarii, cf. Ludwig Schmidt, Geschichte der deutschen Stämme bis zum Ausgang der Völkerwanderung: Die Westgermanen ed. 2, 1 (Munich 1938) 86ff. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to doubt the main facts of Tacitus's story, despite his wellknown tendency to hold up German virtue as an example to the Romans and despite the ancient double tradition of "soft" as well as "hard primitivism." 2

' Cf. also the impressive array of atrocities, committed by Romans against barbarians and vice versa, in A. Alföldi, "Die ethische Grenzscheide am römischen Limes," Schweizer Beiträge zur allgemeinen Geschichte 8 ( 1 9 5 0 ) esp. 4 0 f f . 28 O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt 1 ed. 4 (Stuttgart 1921) 4 0 2 f f . 29 A. Alföldi, "Die Bewegungen der dakischen und germanischen Völker am Pontus, an der Donau und am Rhein," in Studien zur Geschichte der Weltkrise des 3. Jahrhunderts nach Christus (Darmstadt 1967) 341, and "Die Hauptfaktoren der Geschichtsentwicklung zwischen 249 und 271 nach Christus," ibid. 4 0 1 , 4 1 1 . 30 A. Schenk Graf v. Stauffenberg, "Die Germanen im römischen Reich," in: Das Imperium und die Völkerwanderung (Munich n.d.) 7ff., esp. 13f., 16, 25f., 82ff. 31 R. MacMullen, "Barbarian Enclaves in the Northern Roman Empire," Antiquité classique 32 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 552ff.; Fergus Miliar, The Roman Empire and Its Neighbours (New York 1967) 2 2 5 f f . 32 For the Ubii, cf. Schmidt (n. 26 above) 2.1 (1940) 209ff.; M. Schmitz, "Die Übersiedlung der Ubier auf das linke Rheinufer," Klio 34 ( 1 9 4 2 ) 239ff. In general, A. Alföldi, "Epigraphica II, 4: Eine Übersiedlung von barbarischen Massen nach Pannonien unter Nero," Archaeologiai Ertesitö 52 ( 1 9 3 9 ) 263ff.

8

G E R H A R T B. L A D N E R

foederati in Dacian territory, now again considered Roman, and had established Vandals in Pannonia. 33 Yet, such concessions did not appreciably alter the fact that the anti-barbarian ethos continued to be the rule, 34 however much it might be tempered by real or apparent expediency: concessions were made either in order to neutralize at least locally the general barbarian pressure by supporting a friendly tribe, or in order to use barbarian settlers as replacements for the increasingly insufficient Roman soldiery and peasantry. This process formed a transition from the social-economic, military, and political conditions of the earlier to those of the later empire: republican and early imperial times had known vast numbers of slaves, largely from the Mediterranean area, in the countryside as well as in the cities: but since the late second century the economy of latifundia, with tenant farmers of various half-free status and often of northern barbarian origin, was on the increase and from the third to the fifth century became dominant in the West.35 Furthermore, the Roman army was gradually, and since Constantine the Great irreversibly, barbarized from the bottom to the top, that is, from simple soldiers to the highest officers. 36 Finally, the old Roman conceptions of foedus and foederati, which were so important for Rome's dealings with her neighbors, were thoroughly changed. 31 The history of Rome's international relations and treaties, including the foedera, has until fairly recent times been dominated by Theodor Mommsen, whose interpretations are still very persuasive, though no longer valid in all points. 38 Mommsen divides relations between Rome and other peoples into those which were based on the public right of mutual hospitium and amicitia, and those in which private deditio and clientela were transferred to the public sphere of the socii populi Romani,39 be they cities or kingdoms, tribes or nations, these latter relationships were not mutual in the strict sense, but rather unilateral, since protection and domination were exercised only on the Roman side, whereas subjection and obligation were the lot of the 33 For Constantine's settlement of the Goths cf. Schmidt (n. 26 above) op. cit. Die Ostgermanen ed. 2 (Munich 1934) 227f.; for the Vandals cf. Stauffenberg (n. 30 above) 82-85. 34 Cf. in this respect, for instance, Alföldi (n. 27 above) 37ff.; also idem (n. 9 above). 35 For the role of the barbarians in connection with the increasing expansion of the latifundia, cf. E. M. Schtajerman, Die Krise der Sklavenhalterordnung im Westen des römischen Reiches, trans, from the Russian by. W. Seyfarth (Berlin 1964); the author sees this process, with some reason, though not without exaggeration, as a transition to the early stages of mediaeval feudalism and manorialism. Cf. also S. Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, ed. 2 (London 1921) 294ff. 36

This development is so well known that references are superfluous. Besides standard works on late Roman history and military history, the old book by M. Bang, Die Germanen im römischen Dienst bis zum Regierungsantritt Constantins I. (Berlin 1906) is still useful; cf. also DiU 292ff. 37 A good introduction to these complex questions is found in G. Wirth, "Zur Frage der föderierten Staaten in der späteren römischen Kaiserzeit," Historia 16 (1967) 231ff.; cf. also J. Gaudemet, "L'étranger au bas-empire," in L'étranger: Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin 9 (Brussels 1958) esp. 218ff. 38 Cf. T. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht 1 ed. 3 (Leipzig 1887; repr. 1952) 246ff.; 3.1 ed. 3 (1887 [1952]) 590ff.; and the concise and precise article "Das römische Gastrecht und die römische Clientel," in his Römische Forschungen 1 (Berlin 1864) 319ff. 39 Cf. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht 3.1.659f.

ROMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD BARBARIANS

9

non-Roman partners. The foedus, a solemn treaty of alliance, could be concluded in both relationships, but only those who belonged to the second, more dependent class, were technically foederati.40 It cannot be my intention to discuss here the various refinements, modifications, and controversies which Mommsen's doctrine has experienced, especially through the studies of E. Täubler, 41 S. Brassloff, 42 A. Heuss,43 and W. Dahlheim. 44 The only crucial question in our context is whether or not there was continuity between the barbarian foederati of late Roman times and the earlier forms of foedus, societas, amicitia, and so on. It is in this respect that the study of Stauffenberg, cited above, 45 is of very great interest. According to him, Mommsen's view, that the foederati-status of the fourth and fifth centuries was identical at least legally with that of the republic and earlier empire, 46 cannot be maintained. The Visigoths and other barbarians, who in the late fourth and the following century concluded a foedus with Rome and crossed the borders of the empire, did not give up their independence; they continued to live under their own leaders. In this respect they differed from the barbarian tribes or groups, such as the Ubii and others (see above), who had been settled in Roman territory earlier. Also, the regime of hospitalitas, under which the foederati of the late period established themselves, if it still held overtones of the old Roman concept of the hospitium, nevertheless amounted to a reversal of the latter: these "guests" of the Romans had militarily and politically become their masters. 47 Stauffenberg, then, was right against Mommsen when he stressed the altogether new character of the late Roman foedus: it was a means to legitimize through a sort of legal fiction the forced or at least expedient implantation of conquering barbarian states inside the borders of the Roman Empire; it no longer served, as most older foedera had done, the complex 40 Ibid. 6 5 3 f f . See E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.) (Oxford 1958) esp. 1-14, 25ff., 154ff. 41 E. Täubler, Imperium Romanum 1 (Leipzig, 1913). 42 S. Brassloff, Der römische Staat in seinen internationalen Beziehungen (Vienna 1928). 43 A. Heuss, Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der römischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit, Klio, Beiheft 31 (Leipzig 1933). For good summaries of Mommsen's views and those of some of his critics, cf. P. Bierzanek, "Sur les origines du droit de la guerre et de la paix," Revue historique de droit français et étranger ser. 4, 38 ( 1 9 6 0 ) 9 4 f f . , and K. H. Ziegler, "Das Völkerrecht der römischen Republik," in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 1.2 (Berlin 1972) 6 8 f f . , with a very good discussion of the terms hospitium, amicitia, societas, foedus, deditio, etc. (82ff.). 44

W. Dahlheim, Struktur und Entwicklung des römischen Völkerrechts im dritten und zweiten Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Munich 1968). 45 N. 30 above. 46 T. Mommsen, "Das römische Militärwesen seit Diocletian," in Gesammelte Schriften 6 (1910, repr. 1 9 6 5 ) 2 2 6 . 47 Cf. F. Lot, "Du régime de l'hospitalité," Revue belge de philologie 7 ( 1 9 2 8 ) 9 7 5 f f . The continuity between the hospitalitas, claimed by Burgundians, Visigoths, and Ostrogoths during the Barbarian Invasions, and the older Roman hospitium (publicum) - cf. n. 21 above, for the Haedui, and Mommsen's study, quoted in n. 38 - seems to be limited to the military sphere: the Germanic foederati may have used and developed Roman methods of the quartering of troops. It is in this sense that Cod. Theodos. VII, 8 : De metatis, uses the terms hospitalitas and hospitium. Cf. also E. T. Gaupp, Die germanischen Ansiedlungen und Landtheilungen in den Provinzen des römischen Westreiches (Breslau 1 8 4 4 ) 8 5 f f .

10

G E R H A R T B. LADNER

process of the expansion of Roman rule outside of old borders, a process through which conquered outsiders had been transformed into allied subjects, while leaving them varying degrees of autonomy. 48 In spite of all differences between the republican-early imperial and the late Roman version of the foedus, this institution did become a bridge between the sovereignty of the Roman Empire and that of the Germanic kingdoms which were founded on its soil. Some of the latter day Romans saw this development in a favorable light, but the majority did not, a fact which will be briefly illustrated at the end of this article. Meanwhile, it may be pointed out that when Justinian I attempted to reverse the evolution by reconquering the Roman West from Constantinople, the old pattern of Roman refusal and barbarian bitterness seems to have reemerged strongly. According to Procopius, the Ostrogothic King Totila complained to the Roman Senate that the Romans, though they had been living with the Goths for some time, to that very day had not learned to concede to them any land, even if deserted. 49 This sounds like an echo from the times of Fritigern's Visigoths, of the Ampsivarii, and even of the Cimbri. At this point it is necessary to consider a fundamental aspect of Roman political thinking, insofar as it has a bearing on those late developments of Roman history with which we are here mainly concerned. War had been a recurrent condition of the Roman Republic; peace therefore had to be renewed almost constantly, if only for short spells. Roman expansion and domination themselves had since very early times been conceived of as instruments for the restoration and maintenance of external and internal peace. Once a saturation point of expansion had been attained in early imperial times and Rome was on the whole to remain on the defensive, peace stood in the very center of the Romans' view of themselves as founders and renewers of a world order valid for eternity. 50 Consequently, non-Roman peoples who dared to challenge this order, be it as outright aggressors, be it as more or less importunate 48 C f . Stauffenberg (n. 30 above) 36ff., 53ff., 84f.; E. Kornemann, "Die unsichtbaren Grenzen des römischen Kaiserreichs," in Gestalten und Reiche (Leipzig 1943) 336ff. 49 Procopius, De bello Gothico 3 (7) 21. At the same time, Totila's letter to Justinian, offering a military alliance in return for peaceful possession of Italy (Procopius, ibid.) recalls Ariovistus's offer to Caesar; cf. above, p. 5. 50 All this was still held true by Ammianus Marcellinus, in spite of his misgivings about the quality of the Roman leaders of his time. Cf. (n. 2 above) 14.6.3-6, Clark 1.12f., a text worth quoting in its entirety: "Tempore quo primis auspiciis in mundanum fulgorem surgeret victura dum erunt homines Roma, ut augeretur sublimibus incrementis, foedere pacis aeternae Virtus convenit atque Fortuna, plerumque dissidentes, quarum si altera defuisset, ad perfectam non venerat summitatem. Eius populus ab incunabulis primis ad usque pueritiae tempus extremum, quod annis circumcluditur fere trecentis, circummurana pertulit bella; deinde aetatem ingressus adultam, post multíplices bellorum aerumnas, Alpes transcendit et fretum; in iuvenem erectus et virum, ex omni plaga quam orbis ambit inmensus, reportavit laureas et triumphos; iamque vergens in senium, et nomine solo aliquotiens vincens, ad tranquilliora vitae discessit. Ideo urbs venerabilis, post superbas efferatarum gentium cervices oppressas, latasque leges, fundamenta libertatis et retinacula sempiterna, velut frugi parens et prudens et dives, Caesaribus tamquam liberis suis regenda patrimonii iura permisit. Et olim licet otiosae sint tribus, pacataeque centuriae, et nulla suffragiorum certamina, set Pompiliani redierit securitas temporis, per omnes tamen quotque sunt partesque terrarum, ut domina suscipitur et regina, et ubique patrum reverenda cum auctoritate canities, populique Romani nomen circumspectum et verecundum."

ROMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD BARBARIANS

11

petitioners for partnership in the empire, not on Roman, but on their own terms, were — as we have seen — treated as enemies with remarkable consistency. It is not insignificant that since the Augustan age at the latest the term "rebel" was used for the external foes of the empire, thus by Virgil,51 Ovid,52 Livy,53 Tacitus, 5 4 Suetonius. 55 It is hardly an exaggeration to say that rebellion and pacification constituted the main rhythm of Roman imperial history. As we shall see presently, Restitutio, Renovatio, Reparatio — formulas which appear in the legends of imperial coins since Hadrian — usually celebrated restoration of peace after rebellion. Rebellare originally meant to start war all over again, and this is exactly what in the view of the Romans their enemies did, especially if they had previously submitted. 5 6 Having attained vast power and maintained it, the Romans believed that they must and could stop actual or potential wars, de-bellare actual or potential enemies. Virgil has expressed it in three famous verses: Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento: Hae tibi erunt artes: pacisque imponere morem, Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. 57 And in the next generation Velleius Paterculus praised the pacification and renovation of Rome by Augustus in a few almost equally telling lines: Finita . . . bella civilia, sepulta externa, revocata pax, sopitus ubique armorum furor, restituta vis legibus, iudiciis auctoritas, senatui maiestas, imperium magistratuum ad pristinum redactum modum . . . prisca ilia et antiqua reipublicae forma revocata . . . pacatusque victoriis terrarum orbis. s 8 Such views of a cosmic as well as political order of peace — even if native to the Romans, as Virgil and other Augustans intimate — could of course not have fully developed without the Alexandrian and Caesarian antecedents, without the aspirations of a unifying world monarchy and the related Stoic ideology of world citizenship. 59 Plato had still held characteristically different views of war and rebellion. In the Republic, Socrates says that factional discord and sedition (araai?) 51

Vergil, Aeneid 6 . 8 5 9 : . . . Gallumque rebellem . . . . " Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.754: . . . Numidasque rebelles. . . . s3 Livy, Histor. 4 2 . 2 1 : . . . pacatos ad rebellium (or: rebellandum) incitasset.... 54 Tacitus, Annates 1.55 and esp. 57: . . .anno quo Germaniae descivere . . . (Segimundus, brother-in-law of Arminius) profugus ad rebelles. 55 Suetonius, Augustus 21; Caligula 5 1 : . . .rebellione Germaniae. 56 Cf. Caesar, De bello Gallico 3.10: . . . rebellio facta post deditionem . . . . The term rebellio is Ciceronian; cf. Oratio pro M. Aemilio Scauro 42. That warlike actions of foederati, especially, were considered rebellious, is well brought out by Wirth (n. 37 above) 2 3 2 f f . " Vergil, Aeneid 6 . 8 5 3 - 8 5 5 ; see also the immediately following verses, especially 8 5 9 , cited n. 5 1 above. 58 Velleius Paterculus, Histor. Rom. 2 . 8 9 . 3 f f . 59 For ideas of peace in antiquity, and especially for Pax Augusta and Pax Romana, cf. H. Fuchs, Augustinus und der antike Friedensgedanke (Berlin 1926; repr. 1 9 6 5 ) 182ff.; also A. Momigliano, "The Peace of the Ara Paris," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5 ( 1 9 4 2 ) 2 2 8 f f . , useful especially for the distinction between Greek and Roman elements within the imperial ideology of peace and world rulership, for which see also J. Vogt, "Orbis Romanus," in Orbis (Freiburg 1960) esp. 161 ff.

12

G E R H A R T B. L A D N E R

appertain only to strife among Greeks, which is to be abhorred, whereas he considers enmity between Greeks and barbarians as natural: he calls them natural enemies 60 (iro\enoov Flood. The interval in days is correct, but that in Persian years and days is short by one day — that is, the given interval is that between the beginning of the Kalpa and the Thursday preceding the Flood. This may be due to a misunderstanding of the difference between the midnight and the sunrise epochs, or it may simply be a scribal error. The calendar-dates for the epoch of the Flood are taken from Abu Ma'shar, whose computations have been discussed elsewhere. 100 b. Flood -*• Philip. If one assumes that something has dropped from the text, the computation is correct, and does not contain the erroneous date of Philip embedded in Abu Ma'shar's computation as preserved by al-Hashimi. 101 c. Flood -*• Alexander. If a minor scribal error is corrected, the computation is correct. d. Flood -*• Hijra. The difference between the 269 days of my computation and the 268 days of Abu Ma'shar's arises from his erroneously rounding off to one the fractional intercalary day involved in 3,837 Arab years. Otherwise his computation is correct.

158

DAVID PINGREE

e. Flood -»• Yazdijird. The computation is correct. 22 Rabi' I of 11 A.H. is 16 June 632, the epoch of the era of Yazdijird. f. Philip -> Alexander. The 316 days here is probably a scribal error influenced by the erroneous 316 in the next interval, g. g. Philip -»• Hijra. Both year-numbers are too great by one, and both day-numbers were wrongly copied. h. Philip -*• Yazdijird. The year-number was wrongly copied. i. Alexander

Hijra. The computation of this interval in Arab years and days is

totally wrong; the source of the error is not clear to me. j. Hijra -»• Yazdijird. The computation is correct. Table 1 of the zlj of al-Khwarizm! gives many of these intervals, but with much greater confusion and using 17 February - 3 1 0 1 as the epoch of the Flood. 1 0 2 of these intervals also appear in various manuscripts of the Toledan Tables.

103

Some And

an elaborate chronological table is included among the Arabic texts translated into Greek by Gregory Chioniades in about 1300; 1 0 4

it does not appear in the Arabic

manuscripts of the Zlj al-Sanjan, so it probably was taken from the lost Zlj al-'Ala'i written by al-Fahhad in the twelfth century. The author uses the scheme set forth by Abu Ma'shar in his Kitab al-uluf and Zlj al-hazarat wherein a y u g a contains 360,000 years split in half by the occurrence of the Flood on Friday 18 February - 3 1 0 1 .

10S

I edit the text from fol. 167 of Vaticanus graecus 211 in Appendix 3. In this list the epoch of the era of Noah is Friday 18 February - 3 1 0 1 ; that of the era of Nabuchodonosor is Thursday 26 February - 7 4 6 ; that of Alexander (the era of Philip) is Sunday 12 November - 3 2 3 ; that of the Romans (the Seleucid era) is Monday 1 October - 3 1 1 ; that of the Arabs (the era of the Hijra) is Friday 16 July 622; that of the Persians (the era of Yazdijird) is Tuesday 16 June 632; and that of the Sultan Malikshah is Tuesday 12 March 1079. The table gives intervals in years (Persian in lines 1, 2, 3, and 6; Julian in line 4; and Arab in line 5) and in days, with the latter expressed in both decimals (with Indo-Arabic numerals) and sexagesimals (with Greek numerals). The period from the Flood to the Hijra is too much by one day — that is, the Flood is dated 17 February - 3 1 0 1 — both in the day-interval and the year-interval; however, for computing intervals between other epochs and the Hijra, the correct number of days is used except in the case of the epoch of Malikshah. The interval in days between the Hijra and Malikshah is 166,794 or 1526768 - 1359974; the interval should be 166,795 days. In the intervals between the Hijra and the era of Yazdijird expressed in years, an Arab year is assumed to be 354H days rather than 354 11/30 days; the latter value would give 10 years and 82 days. In the interval between the Hijra and the era of Malikshah, though the correct

102

Neugebauer (n. 6 6 above) 8 2 - 8 4 ; cf. chap. 1 o f al-JahanT (n. 4 5 above) N ii - O iii.

103

T o o m e r (n. 7 2 above) 18, and Pingree (n. 7 3 above).

104

D. Pingree, "Gregory Chioniades and Palaeologan A s t r o n o m y , " DOP 18 ( 1 9 6 4 ) 1 3 3 - 1 6 0 . Pingree (n. 2 0 above) 2 7 - 3 1 .

105

INDIAN AND PSEUDO-INDIAN PASSAGES

159

Arab year-length is used, the erroneous interval of 166,794 days also is utilized. Finally, it should be noted that the period before the Flood is taken to be 180,000 Persian years of 365 days each, whereas Abu Ma'shar's years contain 365;15,32,24 days each. Given the interval of 1,363,597 days from the beginning of the Kaliyuga to the epoch of Yazdijird and the 720,634,442,715 days from the beginning of the Kalpa to the beginning of the current Kaliyuga, one can determine with the Brahmapaksa's rotations in a Kalpa the longitudes of the apogees and nodes on 16 June 632. 1 0 6 The computed longitudes are precisely identical with those of al-Khwarizmi, 107 except that Ibn al-Saffar has misread the entry for Saturn — 8 s 20;55° with a kaf{20) — as 8 s 4;55° with a dal (4). This confusion is noted by Abraham ibn Ezra. 108 Brahmagupta's basic formula for finding planetary mean longitudes for mean sunrise at the meridian of Lanka, on which lies also Ujjayini, is:

where R is the planet's revolutions in a Kalpa, C the civil days in a Kalpa, c the lapsed civil days (ahargana), and r the lapsed revolutions. The rule is given in BSS 1.31; it is repeated by Ibn al-Muthanna. 109 Lanka is not mentioned in the Sindhind tradition, but Arab astronomers place in the same geographical location (on the equator on the prime meridian) the city of Ujjayini, which in the Indian tradition is at a latitude of 24° N on the prime meridian. Ujjayini was originally transliterated U z a y n , " 0 but this was soon corrupted to Ann. It is often referred to as Arin in the Latin translations of al-Khwarizmi, 111 Ibn al-Muthanna citing al-Farghanl, 112 and alJahanl, 1 1 3 and in later authors. Brahmagupta gives a general and correct rule for applying a correction for the longitudinal difference between Lanka and one's location in BSS 1.34. A rule for computing the longitudinal difference, based on the assumption that the longitude of Arin is 90° E, was given by al-Khwarizmi." 4 Brahmagupta gives the following formula for finding the accumulated epact, e.

106

See Pingree (n. 64 above) fr. Z 1. Chaps. 8, 18, and 19, and tables 27-56 (see Neugebauer [n. 66 above] 99 and 103); see also Pingree (n. 26 above). The longitudes of various apogees are also referred to by A b r a h a m ibn Ezra (n. 70 above) 77-78; 121; and 147; cf. c h a p . 9 of Al-JahanT (n. 45 above) Q i v-Q ii. 108 A b r a h a m ibn Ezra (n. 70 above) 109-110. 109 Millas (n. 68 above) 126; Goldstein (n. 69 above) 26-27 and 152-153. 110 Pingree (n. 20 above) 4 5 . 111 I n t r o d u c t i o n ; chaps. 7, 24, and 25; see also Neugebauer (n. 66 above) 8 6 , 151, and 2 1 1 . 112 Millas (n. 68 above) 122; Goldstein (n. 69 above) 4 9 . 113 Al-JahanT, chap. 8 (n. 45 above) Q 1, and chap. 27, Z i v. 114 Chap. 7; cf. Millas (n. 6 8 above) 122; Goldstein (n. 69 above) 4 9 . 107

160

DAVID PINGREE

where y is the number of years elapsed since the beginning of the Kalpa. The rule is based on the calculation that the epact in the normal sense equals 11;3,52,30 tithis. The rule is found in BSS 1.39-40, and appears among the fragments of Ya'qub ibn Tariq. 115 It does not occur in the Latin translation of al-Majritl's recension of the zij of al-Khwarizmi, but a part of it appeared in the original, as we know from a lemma of Ibn al-Muthanna. 1,6 There the fraction 2481/9600 is the fraction of a day by which the length of a year in the Sindhind exceeds 365 days; for 2481 ^ 5 = 0;15,30,22,30. In the second chapter of the Brahmasphutasiddhanta Brahmagupta deals with the computation of the true longitudes of the planets. He begins with a versified table of Sines (BSS 2.2-5) and Versines (BSS 2.6-9); these are the only two trigonometrical functions normally tabulated by Indian astronomers, though they also make frequent use of the Cosines. In the Brahmasphutasiddhanta R = 3270, which is a value known to al-Fazari, 111 and there are 24 entries in a quadrant so that the interval between arguments is 3;45°, the standard Indian value. But in the Khandakhadyaka R = 150 and there are 6 entries in a quadrant, so that the interval between arguments is 15°; see Kh 3.6, which is derived from BSS 25.16. This value of R was also known to al-Fazari, 118 who apparently derived it from the Sasanian Zij al-Shah or the Zij al-Arkand. The tables of Sines in Adelard's Latin translation of al-Majritl's version of al-Khwarizml's zij use R = 6 0 , 1 , 9 but it is known that in the Arabic original R = 150. Therefore we find a diameter of 300 in Ibn al-Muthanna. 120 This value of R is also referred to by Abraham ibn Ezra, 1 2 1 though with some confusion as he infers that the Indians made the radius rather than the diameter equal to 300. The value R = 150 is also used in the Toledan Tables122 and in an anonymous Byzantine treatise of the late eleventh century. 123 It is also clear that in al-Khwarizml's zij the intervals of argument in the Sine-table were 15° as in the Khandakhadyaka; he and other Arabic astronomers call the interval of argument in any table a kardaja, a term derived through a Pahlavl intermediary from the Sanskrit kramajya (Sine; as opposed to utkramajya, Versine). The evidence is found in Ibn al-Muthanna again. 124 115 116 117 1,8

120

Pingree (n. 64 above) fr. T 9. Millâs (n. 68 above) 2 0 0 ; Goldstein (n. 69 above) 144. Pingree (n. 63 above) frs. Z 12 and Z 16. Ibid. frs. Z 11, Z 13, Z 15, and Z 25. Tables 58 and 58a; but see Neugebauer (n. 66 above) 5 4 and 104. Millâs (n. 68 above) 124; Goldstein (n. 69 above) 51 and 178; cf. Abraham (n. 70 above)

131. 121

Abraham (n. 70 above) 126-127. Toomer (n. 72 above) 27; Pingree (n. 73 above). See also O. Neugebauer and O. Schmidt, "Hindu Astronomy at Newminster in 1 4 2 8 , " Annals of Science 8 ( 1 9 5 2 ) 2 2 1 - 2 2 8 . 123 O. Neugebauer, A Commentary on the Astronomical Treatise Par. gr. 2425, Mémoires de l'Académie royale de Belgique, Classe des lettres 69.4 (Brussels 1 9 6 9 ) 27-33 and 37-38. 122

161

INDIAN AND PSEUDO-INDIAN PASSAGES

The planetary model used by Brahmagupta in both the Brahmasphutasiddhanta and the Khand.akhadya.ka is that employing two epicycles, 125 whereas that employed by al-Khwarizmi is a model employing an eccenter and an epicycle. Such an eccenter-epicycle model was also known to Brahmagupta (BSS 14.1-18) and to other Indian astronomers, but does not seem to have been often used in computations. But al-Khwarizmi (following al-Fazari) probably derived the models as also many of the parameters from the Sasanian Zij al-Shah. The equation of the center depends on the planet's distance from its apogee. We have already seen that the longitudes of the apogees according to al-Khwarizmi were computed from the elements of the Brahmasphutasiddhanta. It remains to be noted that the Arabic term for apogee, al-awj, is derived from the Sanskrit ucca\ in Latin it appears as elaug or alauge. 126 The maximum equations of the center according to the ardharatrikapaksa and the Zij al-Shah,127 and according to al-Khwarizmi 128 are: Ardharatrikapaksa Saturn Jupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon

9;36° 5;6° 11 ;10° 2;14° 2;14° 4;28° 4;56°

Zij al-Shah

al-Khwarizmi

8;37° 5;6° 11 ;12° 2;14° 2;13° 4;0° 4;56°

8;36° 5;6° 11;13° 2;14° 2;14° 4;2° 4;56°

Close approximations to the ardharatrika values are given in Kh 2.6c-7. In al-Khwarizmi's tables the maximum equations of the center occur at arguments of 90° because they are computed according to the so-called "Method of Declinations" (sun and moon) 1 2 9 or "Method of Sines" (five star-planets). 130 Brahmagupta computes all equations of the center according to the "Method of Sines" (Kh 2.6c-7 cited above in conjunction with Kh 1.16-17). The "Method of Declinations," however, was also known to Brahmagupta, whose declinations in any case form a sine-function (BSS 2.55). The rule is given more directly in BSS 3.61-62. Incidentally, this verse informs us that the obliquity of the ecliptic is assumed to be 24° by Brahmagupta as by all other Indian astronomers. This was the value originally used by al-Khwarizml in one table according to Ibn al-Muthanna, though in another he

124

Millas (n. 68 above) 123; Goldstein (n. 69 above) 49 and 176; cf. Abraham (n. 70 above) 130, and Millas (n. 68 above) 127. 125 Pingree, " O n the Greek Origin" (n. 4 above). The varying velocities of the planets in the different q u a d r a n t s of the Indian epicycle are referred to by Abu Ma'shar 7.1 (n. 4 0 above). 126 Al-Khwarizml, chaps. 8 and 18; Millas (n. 68 above) 107. 127 Pingree (n. 64 above) fr. Z 7; cf. Pingree (n. 63 above) frs. Z 12 and Z 13. 128 Tables 22-56. 129 Neugebauer (n. 66 above) 95-96. 130 Ibid. 100.

162

DAVID PINGREE

used 23;51°, 1 3 1 the value of the Handy Tables. The Latin version gives only the latter. 132 The equation of the anomaly of a planet is computed from an epicycle by Greek, Indian, and Arabic astronomers, though it was the Indians who introduced the use of Sines to solve the angles. Again the Sindhind tradition follows the ardharatrikapaksa and Zij al-Shah in the maximum values of the equations of anomaly. I tabulate below the maximum equations (and the arguments at which they occur when known) according to the ardharatrikapaksa (Kh 2.8-17), the Zij al-Shah,133 and al134 Khwarizmi: Ardharatrikapaksa equation Saturn Jupiter Mars Venus Mercury

6;20° 11 ;30° 40;30° 46;15° 21 ;30°

argument 96° 108° 135° 141° 120°

Zij al-Shah

al-Khwarizmi

equation

equation

argument

5;44° 10;52° 40;31° 47;11° 21 ;30°

5;44° 10;52° 40 ;31 ° 47;11° 21 ;30°

95°-98° 98°-103° 128° -129° 135° 112°-113°

Ibn al-Muthanna states that in al-Khwarizmi's zij the equations were originally given in tables with different kardajat or intervals of argument for each planet; the smallest kardaja was 3;45°, which we have seen to be the interval of arguments in the Sine-table of the Brahmasphutasiddhanta. The use of these kardajat placed the maximum equations at the following arguments: Saturn Jupiter Mars Venus Mercury

97;30° 97;30° 127;30° 135° 112;30°

Then by linear interpolation between kardajat al-Khwarizml computed the values for each degree of argument. The amount of the equation of the anomaly should vary with the distance from the earth of the center of the epicycle, which depends on its position on the eccentric deferent. Indian texts, which normally do not use an eccentric, naturally ignore this variation. This fact confused Abraham ibn Ezra, 135 who thought that the Indians' failure to agree with Ptolemy necessarily led them to commit errors.

131 Millas (n. 68 above) 130; Goldstein (n. 69 above) 63; cf. Abraham (n.. 7 0 above) 77, 9 2 (fr. Z 9 of Ya'qub ibn Tariq), and 143. 132 Tables 21-26. 133 Pingree (n. 63 above) fr. Z 14 and (n. 64 above) fr. Z 8. 134 Tables 27-56; cf. Millas (n. 68 above) 118-119; Goldstein (n. 69 above) 4 3 4 4 and 169-170. 135 Abraham (n. 70 above) l l l ; s e e 117, and cf. 85-86 and 89.

163

INDIAN AND PSEUDO-INDIAN PASSAGES

In fact, the Indians integrate the two equations by a method of calculating alternating values of each equation for arguments modified by the application of a half or the whole of the other equation. One such procedure is followed by al-Khwarizml, 1 3 6

others by Brahmagupta (BSS 2.35 and Kh 2.18), and others by

others. It is only necessary to note here that the method in the Sindhind is indeed Indian. For computing the time till or since first or second station, Brahmagupta prescribes the division of the difference between the anomaly of the phase and the planet's anomaly by the difference between its %/zra-velocity and its corrected manda-velocity

(BSS 2.49; see also Kh 2.19). The same rule is in essence given by

al-Khwarizml, 1 3 7 and is repeated by Ibn al-Muthanna. 1 3 8 In problems relating to time and locality also the Sindhind

is indebted to

Brahmagupta. He computes the Sine of the ascensional difference (Sin 7) in the following manner. First he finds the radius of the sun's day-circle (r^):

then the earth-sine (e): Sin 5 • s Q

where s 0 is the noon equinoctial shadow and 12 the height of the gnomon. Finally,

This algorithm is given in BSS 2.56-58. Neugebauer has shown that this procedure lies behind the rule given in chapter 26 of al-Khwarizml's zij.139 Brahmagupta correctly states the relation between the sun's zenith-distance at noon (90° - a n where a n is the sun's altitude at noon) and the local terrestrial latitude (ip):

u "

m> 2 " 0m A m "

r

m)2-0m

/

b

b

s

m - V

Brahmagupta converts the resulting times into an elongation of arc (AX g and AA t ) by:

AX

e

=

AX

t

=

At

A

e '"60 b

m •

This rule is given in BSS 4.9. Brahmagupta assumes that the lunar orbit is parallel to the ecliptic during an

143

Chaps. 29-30a. Tables 61-66; see Neugebauer (n. 66 above) 107. 145 Milläs (n. 68 above) 165-169; Goldstein (n. 69 above) 104-109; cf. Abraham ibn Ezra (n. 7 0 above) 166. 146 Neugebauer (n. 123 above) 33-34. 147 Millas (n. 68 above) 169-170; Goldstein (n. 69 above) 109-110. ,4 ' Millas (n. 68 above) 171-172; cf. Abraham (n. 7 0 above) 166-167. 144

166

DAVID P I N G R E E

eclipse while al-Khwarizmi correctly takes into consideration the fact that it is inclined. Therefore, al-Khwarizml's computation of those times and arcs as preserved by Ibn al-Muthanna 149 differs from Brahmagupta's though it remains an adaptation rather than a rejection of the Indian method. However, precisely Brahmagupta's method was used by the anonymous Byzantine text in Parisinus graecus 2425.' 5 0 Finally, Brahmagupta makes the color of a lunar eclipse depend on its magnitude: 1. 2. 3. 4.

beginning and end partial more than half total

smoky black black-coppery tawny

These colors are given in BSS 4.19. The colors were evidently in the original of al-Khwarizml's zij, though all that we have left is a non-specific, philosophical discussion by Ibn al-Muthanna 151 and what appears to be a corrupt — certainly different — version in the fourteenth-century Barcelona tables associated with Pedro IV "el Ceremonioso" of Aragon.'" Brahmagupta, like all Indian astronomers, computes a longitudinal ( n \ ) and a latitudinal (np) component of parallax. The first depends on the sun's elongation (AX) to the east or west of the nonagesimal (V); the maximum is assumed to be 4 ghatikas = 1 / 1 5 day when the sun is on the horizon, the minimum 0 when the sun is at V. The second depends on the zenith-distance of the sun or moon on the altitude-circle of the nonagesimal; if the zenith-distance is 90°, the maximum parallax of 4 ghatikas is again assumed to occur. Further, since the noon zenithdistance of a body on the ecliptic is 0 - 5 it follows that: if

"Apei, "Eppff.

raq 8e e%fjq Tfj 'AQpoSirri,

Kal raq e%rjq Tib

DAVID PINGREE

184 ToO 5 è KapKiuov ràc a ' y poipaq naì r ò y'àvéboiKav

15

'HAieo, r à c S è è^fjq TGJ 'Eppfi,

Tfj "ZeX-rjv-Q, r à c 8è è^rjq reo

r à c S è è|i7C rfj 'A- - p

b •3 Q. 1/ a

w PL,


I itu - P

o a "O a

C/3 r--

2 o " S O iiu»

„ 8 » "Sj J -p

-P

-P

O a 5 Q. a a

8 Q. a

a

Q. a

-P

•P

X-P

8

-P

OO

(N B a

o 9 va Q. o 'yj o. a

Q.

o.

X-P

X

>lu

Aw 13 Hi O < g §

00 "9(N B O 8 5 Q. a a X-P

Tt

O oo

u3 S

(S g 22 *

* a s ~ 'O b o « i i= a ^ -B x X b

-ap

Q.

• - a L § t I -O

8

¡3 o Q. (O

B

Tt

'3 a a, a

-P

>3 t-

p "O 0s rt X "' o 1 o'S

cn (N

Q. X

Q. 3 O -8 O I- " k :uj - p

8 o a o . 3

>