Upload
jaldziama
View
911
Download
29
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Text, Chronography, and sources
Citation preview
CASSIODORUS' CHRONICA TEXT, CHRONOGRAPHY AND SOURCES
Michael Klaassen
A DISSERTATION
in
Classical Studies
Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania
in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
2010
SupefvTsfor of Dissertation / Ji\'j) ]JM
Richard W. Burgess/Trofessor of Classics and Religious Studies, University of Ottawa
Graduate Group Chairperson
Dissertation Committee
Jeremy Mclnerney, Professor of Classical Studies Campbell Grey, Assistant Professor of Classical Studies
UMI Number: 3414225
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI Dissertation Publishing
UMI 3414225 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
uest ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Cassiodorus' Chronica: Text, Chronography, and Sources
COPYRIGHT
2010
Michael Walter Klaassen
iii
ABSTRACT
CASSIODORUS' CHRONICA: TEXT, CHRONOGRAPHY AND SOURCES
Michael Klaassen
Supervisor: Richard W. Burgess
A new text of Cassiodorus' Chronica is followed by the first analysis in any
language of Cassiodorus' chronographic methods and sources. To construct his consular
list Cassiodorus used a now-lost consularia extracted from Livy and Aufidius Bassus
from 509 BCE to 27 CE, the Cursuspaschalis of Victorius of Aquitaine (from 28 to 457),
and a now-lost extension of Victorius' work (from 458 to 519). An examination and
comparison of the Livian and Aufidian consular names with the surviving witnesses to
the same Livian consularia, the Liber prodigiorum of Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus
Papyrus 668, demonstrates that the original consularia was a much larger document
which included material drawn from sources other than Livy. A similar comparison of the
consuls of Victorius of Aquitaine and Cassiodorus reveals a few adjustments and
alterations of consular names, but it is unclear whether they were made by Cassiodorus or
were present in his source. A comparison of Cassiodorus' list from 458 with the other
consular lists from fifth and sixth century Italy, shows that Cassiodorus, whose list is
almost perfect, worked hard to make sure that his list contained both the eastern and the
western consuls for the year.
Cassiodorus drew historical notes from Jerome, Prosper of Aquitaine and
Eutropius which he inserted into his consular list with limited success, content to place
them relative to imperial reigns, but not to the consular list. He epitomized his sources
iv
and passed over ecclesiastical details, concentrating rather on secular history. A
comparison of Cassiodorus' historical notes from 458 to 500 with other consularia from
the same time-period shows that Cassiodorus used a recension of the consularia Italica as
a source, closely related to a similar text used by Paul the Deacon in the ninth century.
Cassiodorus' work, often described as a panegyric of the ruling Ostrogothic family
in Italy, is not successful as a panegyric, but should be seen rather, in the context of
Cassiodorus' whole corpus, as the author's attempt to present the history of the world
succinctly and accurately.
V
Introduction
On 1 January 519 CE, Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator delivered a
panegyric before a meeting of the senate in Rome, praising the consul for the year,
Eutharic Cilliga, husband of the eldest daughter of King Theoderic the Great, and heir
apparent to Theoderic's throne. The celebrations, Cassiodorus tells us, were so
extraordinary that even the legate from the eastern court was amazed. The people of
Rome were so enamoured of their new consul that they longed for him even after he went
back to Ravenna, where he put on another round of games in the same lavish style.1
Shortly thereafter the panegyrist presented the consul with another document: a
chronicle from the creation of the world to his consulship. We do not know exactly when
or how the work was delivered to Eutharic, nor is there any evidence that anyone in the
ancient world used this particular chronicle after its composition. Cassiodorus himself
does not mention it again.2 At the end of the chronicle proper is appended a list of consuls
which carries the work forward to 559, so it is fair to assume that the last ancient hand to
deal with the document added these names at some point shortly after 559. The Chronica
has survived in two manuscripts only, both copies of the same archetype which was the
basis for Johannes Cuspinianus' work, De consulibus Romanorum commentarii,
published posthumously in 1553. But between 559 and when it shows up in Cuspinianus'
library in the sixteenth century there are few hints of its existence.
1 Chron. 1364. 2 There are two places where he might have mentioned it: Institutiones 1.17.2, where he discusses
chronicles, but limits himself to explicitly Christian works, and the preface to the de Orthographic/, where he gives a list of his works, but only those after his conversion. He makes no reference to it in the Variae.
vi
Mommsen published the Chronica twice, once in 1861 in Abhandlungen der
Saechsichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften3 and later, in 1894, in the second of the
Chronica Minora volumes of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores
Antiquissimi series.4 Apart from Mommsen's brief introductions, the work has received
no major study — unlike the Gallic chronicle of 452, and the chronicles of Prosper,
Hydatius, and Marcellinus — and has been used, like most late antique chronicles,
merely as a source for the investigation of other subjects, notably the Livian epitome that
Cassiodorus used as a source for his work and the well-chewed issue of its relationship to
Cassiodorus' lost Gothic History.5 More recently, J. J. O'Donnell devoted seven pages to
it, but the Chronica normally only appears in footnotes in larger works on Ostrogothic
Italy, and typically does not attract much attention for itself. Most authors lay stress on
the work as panegyric and as a piece of propaganda for the Ostrogothic regime and
Theoderic's ruling Amal family.6
To be sure it is a spare work which superficially presents little that is unique or
valuable to the study either of the chronicle genre or late antiquity, and as such it is a little
intractable, so it is not to be wondered at that scholars have found little to say about it.
Still, I believe my efforts in this direction have been repaid in the following study.
I have followed an introductory chapter on Cassiodorus and the genre in which he
wrote with a new text of the Chronica in chapter two. Mommsen's text in Chronica
Minora is, on the whole, a good piece of work, and there are no cruces in the textual
3 Mommsen 1861. The introduction was republished in Mommsen, T. Gesammelte Schriften, 1909, vol. 9, 668-690.
4 Mommsen 1894. 5 Livian epitome: Sanders 1905, Schmidt 1968; the Gothic History: Croke 1987, Heather 1989. 6 E.g. O'Donnell 1979, 38ff., Moorhead 1992, 175, Amory 1997, 66-68.
vii
tradition of any weight. But Mommsen tidied up the orthography in the manuscripts, as
was the style in the nineteenth century, and furthermore the Chronica Minora editions are
cluttered with extra material and can be difficult to use. I have followed a fairly
conservative approach and have kept marginalia to a minimum. I retained Mommsen's
numbering system for ease of reference, since there are no serious reasons for changing
it.
Cassiodorus himself divides the study of his document into two parts when he
discusses his reasons for writing it in his introduction. First, he notes that his addressee,
Eutharic, has himself directed Cassiodorus to restore to the fasti "the dignity of their age-
old truth." The production of an accurate consular list, then, is the primary goal,
generously portrayed as the desire of the new consul. The secondary goal, to include
historical notes in the chronicle, is also mentioned in the introduction: Cassiodorus has
produced a work so that Eutharic's mind "delighted by glorious events, might run through
the very long age of the world in pleasing brevity." Accordingly, the third chapter of this
study will focus on the consular list and Cassiodorus' chronological method, the fourth
chapter will focus on the historical details, and the fifth will assess Cassiodorus' work
both as panegyric and as a work of chronography.
The third chapter investigates Cassiodorus' sources for setting up his
chronological framework: Jerome, a combined epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus,
some material from Eutropius, and the Easter calendar of Victurius of Aquitaine. Each of
these presents its own set of problems. Cassiodorus used Jerome as his over-arching
chronological framework, but this approach created problems for him as he tried to fit his
viii other sources, especially the consular list, into Jerome's framework.
The epitome of Livy which Cassiodorus used is related to that found on P. Oxy.
668 as well as the Prodigiorum Liber of Julius Obsequens. While it appears likely that
Cassiodorus copied the list of consuls he found there unchanged, he added material from
Eutropius to make the number of years in the Livian consular list match the total he found
in Jerome.
The Easter calendar of Victurius of Aquitaine, Cassiodorus' primary source for the
consuls of the imperial period, presents its own set of problems. Victurius produced the
calendar in 457, but calculated the dates of Easter as far as 559, leaving space for
individuals to write in the consular names as they learned them year by year. Thus,
Cassiodorus is a good witness to Victurius' list to 457, but the consuls from 458 to 519
derive in all likelihood from a continuation of Victurius' list which Cassiodorus had to
hand. Several continuations of Victurius' list, all by different people, survive, but none
was the source for Cassiodorus. My study of Victurius also gives rise to some tangential
questions about the list in the manuscript designated Q by Mommsen and Krusch, and the
relationship (or lack thereof) among the surviving three continuations of Victurius. Both
of these issues are dealt with in appendices.
The shape of Cassiodorus' chronographical sources having been established, the
final section of chapter three investigates Cassiodorus' chronographic method, in
particular his attempt, as Prosper of Aquitaine had done almost one hundred years before,
to align the lengths of imperial reigns which he found in Jerome with the consular list of
Victurius. His method, marginally more successful than Prosper's, and the reasons for
ix some of the decisions he made, can be deduced from the final product.
Chapter three leaves many questions broached but unanswered, particularly as
regards Cassiodorus' historical sources. Accordingly, the fourth chapter examines more
carefully the historical material apart from the chronological framework. Despite what
seems at first a haphazard jumble of events with no internal consistency, Cassiodorus
shows himself to have chosen and adapted his historical notes carefully. We can make
some further generalizations about the epitome of Livy which he used and the way he
epitomized the material he found he Jerome, Eutropius and Prosper. Perhaps most
important, however, the material after 378 shows Cassiodorus' use of a lost source with
which he made additions to Prosper, and a branch of the Italian consularia, which shares
many similarities with the much later Historia Romana of Paul the Deacon.
In the fifth and final chapter I discuss the two sides of the chronicle, the
panegyrical and the chronographic. Viewed as a work of panegyric or propaganda for the
Ostrogothic court, the work comes up short, which suggests that Cassiodorus did not
intend it to be read primarily in that light. More important to the author was the shape the
Chronica gave to Roman history.
The Chronica fits neatly into the larger scheme of Cassiodorus' political and
religious output. His chief aim was to set the consular list in order, and this desire to
organize and make good information available to his readers is one of the driving forces
of his whole output, particularly seen in the Variae, the Expositio Psalmorum, and the
Institutiones.
Appendix 1 demonstrates that the consular list known to Mommsen and Krusch as
X.
"Q" was not extracted from a copy of Victurius' Easter calendar, but is an independently
maintained list which was supplemented at some point after 491 by consuls taken from a
copy of Victurius' list.
Appendix 2, on the three extensions of Victurius of Aquitaine's consular list,
outlines their relationship with one another and demonstrates that they all come from
independent traditions after 475.
This dissertation is the product of the work of many people, but only a few can be
named. Gratitude of the first order goes to Richard Burgess of the University of Ottawa.
When I first met him over 25 years ago in the lounge at 14 Hart House Circle at the
University of Toronto, I had no idea that our paths would cross again with such great
benefit to myself. There are few people in this world who find consular lists as exciting as
I do, and I could not have asked for a more attentive or exacting supervisor. All of my
teachers over the last forty years deserve credit as well, but two, T.D. Barnes and J.J.
O'Donnell, who have also read and commented on portions of this work, must be singled
out for the influence they have exerted over my scholarship: grato animo optimis
magistris. Michael Maas read some of my early chapters, and commented extensively on
them; I have been, and continue to be, grateful to him for his advice, guidance, and
friendship.
My parents, Ruth and Walter Klaassen, my brothers Frank and Philip Klaassen
and their partners, Sharon Wright and Stephanie Klaassen, devoted themselves
generously to the support of my efforts, and I am deeply indebted to their encouragement
and exertions on my behalf. Stephanie Lawrence has given me her time, her wisdom, and
xi
her love, and maintains a calm confidence in my ability that, more often than she knows,
shores me up when my own wavers.
Finally, all I have done here is dedicated to my children. When I first turned my
attention to Cassiodorus in 1992, Peter, Judy and Timothy lived only in my daydreams.
When I returned to my unfinished work in the summer of 2007, however, their very real
and joyful presence, as well as their enthusiastic encouragement, gave me much of the
impetus I needed to complete what I had begun. This work has been in many ways their
effort, and to them I will always be grateful.
xiii
Table of Contents
Abstract iv
Introduction vi
Chapter 1: Cassiodorus and the Chronica 1
Chapter 2: The Text 26
Chapter 3: Chronology and Consuls I l l
Chapter 4: Historiography 215
Chapter 5: Panegyric and Chronology 306
Appendix 1: The Fasti Parisini 322
Appendix 2: Manuscripts G, L, S and A of Victorius 341
Bibliography 345
1
Chapter 1: Cassiodorus and the Chronica
Cassiodorus: Life and Works
Cassiodorus was born of a wealthy southern Italian family which had probably
come west from the eastern empire, perhaps near the beginning of the fifth century; he
mentions that his family is famous in both east and west.1 His great-grandfather and
grandfather we know only from Variae 1.4, a letter from Theoderic to the senate
appointing his father to the patriciate, which our Cassiodorus himself wrote. He tells us
that his great-grandfather had been an illustris and had defended Bruttium and Sicily
from the attacks of the Vandals, though in what capacity he acted we are not told.2
Cassiodorus says that his grandfather had been "tribunus et notarius" under Valentinian
III and had retired to Bruttium after serving on an embassy to Attila.3 The political
fortunes of the Cassiodori rose considerably under Cassiodorus' father. Again, we know
this chiefly from Variae 1.4, but also from other letters in the Variae, as well as the Ordo
generis Cassiodororum, sometimes also called the Libellus or the Anecdoton Holderi.4
Like his son, the elder Cassiodorus was born in Bruttium and rose to prominence under
barbarian rule in Italy, but, unlike his son, he rose to distinction in the financial
administration, serving Odovacar both as comes reiprivatae and as comes sacrarum
largitionum. During the years of conflict between Theoderic and Odovacar he kept Sicily
stable and secure, and sometime thereafter, but certainly before 506, he was corrector
1 Variae 1.4.15. 2 Variae 1.4.14. The defense of Sicily referred to is perhaps the attacks on the island by the Vandals
immediately after their capture of Carthage in 439. 3 Variae 1.4.10-13. 4 Edited by O'Donnell 1979, 259-266 and more recently by Alain Galonnier, 1996.
Bruttii et Lucaniae. He was appointed praetorian prefect of Italy sometime between 503
and 507, though we do not know how long he served. The patriciate was conferred on
him in 507.5 There is no record of his death.
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, the last in his family that we know of to
hold public office, was born in Bruttium (he calls it his patria), probably between 485
and 490.6 We can estimate his date of birth because he says that he served as consiliarius
to his father during the latter's prefecture while he was still a "iuvenis, "7 and because he
says he was "primaevus" when became quaestor, an inexact word which could indicate at
age anywhere between sixteen and twenty-three. O'Donnell, in his discussion, seems to
favour the higher end of the age range. Thus a birthdate of 485 would make him twenty-
two in 507, the earliest certain date for his quaestorship, as testified by dateable letters
from the Variae?
He had come to the attention of Theoderic when he delivered a panegyric on the
king and was appointed quaestor palatii on the strength of his performance.9 As quaestor,
his duties involved drafting letters on behalf of Theoderic, and the first four books of the
Variae all comprise letters which date from this period. He was certainly still in office in
511, but no letters from the first four books of the Variae can be dated later than that
year.10
We know nothing of the next three years of Cassiodorus' life. In 514, however, we
5 Variae 1.3 and 1.4 . 6 Variae 11.39.5. 7 For a full discussion of Cassiodorus' birth date, see O'Donnell 1979, 20-23, whom I follow. 8 See Mommsen, MGH AA 12 xxvii ff.. A. van der Vyver suggested that he may have been quaestor
already in 506, 1937 and 1938. 9 Ordo generis 15-17: "iuvenis adeo dum patris Cassiodori patricii et praefecti praetorii consiliarius
fieret laudes Theodorici regis Gothorum facundissime recitasset ab eo quaestor est factus." 10 See Mommsen, MGH AA 12 xxvii ff..
3
know from the surviving fasti that he held the consulship alone, a date confirmed by
several different sources.11 Though it was an extraordinary honour, it was certainly
normal at this time for a young man in his twenties to hold the consulship, often
bankrolled by his father. It is possible, as Mommsen suggested, that Cassiodorus was
corrector Lucaniae et Bruttiorum between his quaestorship and his consulship, but the
passage on which he based his conjecture is not decisive.12
Between the end of his consulship and the beginning of his term as magister
offwiorum he seems to have held no other office and to have devoted himself to some
study and writing. Since he had been consul in 514 it seems likely that he was living in
Rome at least part of the time, or dividing his time among Rome, Ravenna and the family
estates in the south of Italy.13 But he was not intellectually or academically idle. During
these years he seems to have made the acquaintance of Dionyius Exiguus, the Scythian
monk whose Easter calendar, dated from the birth of Christ, was eventually accepted
across Europe. Cassiodorus says in his Institutiones that Dionysius "mecum dialecticam
legit'V'read dialectic with me."14 In 518 he compiled his Chronica, the subject of this
study, in honour of the consul of the following year, Eutharic Cilliga, the son-in-law of
11 From CLRE, inscriptions. ICUR n.s. 8.20836 = ILCV1650; ICUR .s.s 7.17609; CIL 6.9613 = ICUR n.s. 2.5018; ICUR 1.945 = ILCV3109B; CIL 11.4337 = ILCV4681; CIL 9.5021 = ILCV 3166; CIL 12.1692 = ILCV 1432; papyri: P. Cair. Masp. 1 67001.2; P. Flor. 3.280.1; a letter from Pope Symmachus to Caesarius of Aries, Coll. Avell. 109; Liber Pontifwalis 1.269.
12 Mommsen, MGH AA 12: x, who cites a passage from Variae 11.39.5: "senserunt me iudicem suum et quibus privatus ab avis atavisque praefui, vivacius nicus sum in meis fascibus adiuvare" "they perceived me to be their judge, and in the matters in which I profited from my grandfather and greatgrandfathers, I endeavoured to help more actively when I myself had authority." Mommsen's suggestion is followed by PLRE, ad loc. If Cassiodorus did serve as corrector, he may not have done so in this period, since the letter dates from his own praetorian prefecture and the time he refers to is unclear.
13 0'Donnelll979,25. 14 Inst. 1.23.2.
4
Theoderic, and also delivered a panegyric of the new consul before the senate.15 Perhaps
most important for Cassiodorus, however, was his work on the Gothic History. We do not
know when the history was published, but several dates have been put forward, along
with arguments for several versions, Most scholars place the publication of the work
between 519 and 526.16 No matter what the date of its completion, it is certainly possible
that he began work on the Gothic History during these years between his consulship and
his next office, around the same time as the composition of the Chronica.
We know Cassiodorus served as magister offwiorum from his official titles in the
headings of the Variae and the Chronica, as well as from the Ordo generis. Once again,
the Variae set the limits for his tenure of the position, roughly 523 to 527.17 He entered
the post under Theoderic and ended it under Theoderic's grandson and successor,
Athalaric. As magister offwiorum Cassiodorus was largely responsible for the functioning
of the palace bureaucracy, but he also seems to have taken on some of the duties of the
quaestors, as the letters of Athalaric appointing Cassiodorus to the praetorian prefecture
note.18 His stint as magister officiorum also brought with it a brief military command
under Athalaric, though the details of it are very sketchy.19 Most scholars, as well, put the
15 The fragments of Cassiodorus' panegyrics were edited by Ludwig Traube, and included in Mommsen's edition of the Variae, MGH AA 12: 459-484.
16 O'Donnell 1979, 43-47, favours an early date of 519, and at the very least demonstrates that such an early date is possible. See Barnish 1984 and Luiselli 1980. Both favour a date between 523 and 526.
17 Mommsen , MGH AA 12 xxvii ff, O'Donnell 1979, 26. 18 Variae 9.24.6 "Quo loco positus semper quaestoribus affuisti. nam cum opus esset eloquio defaecato,
causa tuo protinus credebatur ingenio" "in this position you were always available to the quaestors. For when there was a need for refined language, the matter was immediately entrusted to your talent," and Variae 9.25.8 "Reperimus eum quidem magistrum, sed implevit nobis quaestoris officium..." "We found him, of course, as magister, but he fulfilled the duty of quaestor for us..."
19 Variae 9.25.8: "Nam dum curae litorum regias cogitationes incesserent, subito a litterarum penetralibus eiectus par suis maioribus ducatum sumpsit intrepidus..." "For when concerns for the shores afflicted kingly thoughts, immediately from the depths of his letters he catapulted forth, fearless and equal to his ancestors he took up leadership..."
5
completion of the Gothic History sometime in this period.20
We again have no information about what Cassiodorus did during the time
between 527 and his appointment as praetorian prefect. We have a firm date for the
appointment, 1 September 1 533, since Cassiodorus wrote his own appointment letters
(presumably after the fact) and included them in the Variae.21 It was a grim time to take
on the oversight of the Italian peninsula. Athalaric died in 534, certainly no more than
eighteen years old and possibly younger,22 and his mother Amalasuintha supported
Theodahad, the nephew of Theoderic, as the new king. Theodahad, however, soon had
Amalasuintha put to death or murdered.23 The eastern emperor Justinian, who had already
destroyed the Vandal kingdom in Africa in 533, used the murder of Amalasuintha as a
pretext for invading Sicily in 535 and then the Italian mainland in 536.24 Theodahad was
murdered and replaced by Witigis late in 536.
We do not know when Cassiodorus ceased to be praetorian prefect. Five letters in
the Variae were written by Cassiodorus for Witigis (10.31-35), but none can be dated
later than 536, and the last dateable letters from the Variae are from late 537 or early
538.25 The superscriptions on the Variae and the Chronica both list him as praetorian
prefect, which suggests that, despite the war, Cassiodorus found the time to compile or
20 See note 16 above. 21 Variae 9.24 and 25. For the date, Variae 9.25.12: "Huic ergo, patres conscripti, deo auspice a
duodecima indictione praefecturae praetorianae regendam tribuimus dignitatem..." "Therefore to this man, conscript fathers, with God's oversight, we commit the control of the office of the praetorian prefecture from the twelfth indiction." The twelfth year of this indiction cycle began on 1 September 533.
22 It is not clear when Athalaric was born. We have two different dates from Jordanes. In the Getica he says that at the time of Theoderic's death Athalaric was "vix decennem" "scarcely ten years old" {Get. 304), but in the Romana (367) he says that Athalaric was 8 in 526, as does Procopius BG 1.2.1. Perhaps the younger age is to be preferred.
23 Procopius BG 1.2.1 - 1.4.27 and Jordanes Getica 306. 24 Procopius BG 1.5.1. 25 0'Donnelll979,31.
6
complete the compilation of the Variae and perhaps make a fresh copy of the Chronica
before he gave up his post.26
During this time as well, between mid-535 and April of 536 he began making
plans with Pope Agapetus for the establishment of a Christian school in Rome, on the
model of a similar school at Nisibis.27 Books were gathered together, but the school itself
was never founded. There is reason to believe that the remains of the library of Pope
Agapetus, which was to have been the library for the school, are still to be seen today on
the Clivo di Scauro in Rome.28 Most scholars place his elevation to the patriciate during
these years since none of the letters in the Variae mention the title. Still, the Ordo generis
clearly says that he was made patricius by Theoderic: "ab eo quaestor est factus, patricius
et consul ordinarius, postmodum dehinc magister officiorum'V'he was made quaestor by
him, patricius, ordinary consul and afterwards magister officiorum." Since the other three
offices are in order, we must take seriously the possibility that he was raised to the
patriciate after his quaestorship, and perhaps on the death of his father.29
The Variae must have been completed sometime in 538, and the scholarly
consensus is that he ceased to perform the duties of praetorian prefect around this time.30
At the same time as he was completing the Variae he was also engaged in writing his first
strictly Christian work, the De anima, which he mentions in the preface to the eleventh
26 Mommsen suggests, in his preface to the Variae, that the Chronica was at one point attached to the Variae and that a scribe copied the titles from the Variae to the Chronica.
27 Inst, praef. 1. Agapetus was pope for only eleven months between 13 May 335 and 22 April 336. 28 41° 53'10.56" N 12° 29'29.09" E 29 See Vanderspoel 1990. 30 There is no evidence for when or why Cassiodorus stopped being praetorian prefect. O'Donnell 1979,
104 gives several suggestions: he was dismissed, he resigned in order to retire, or his duties were no longer performable in wartime. The normal time to leave office would have been the end of the indiction year, but it appears that no one replaced him, so there is no compelling reason to date the end of his tenure to 1 Sept. 537, as does PLRE. In early 537 Belisarius had a prefect, Fidelis, serving under him in Rome (Procopius BG 1.20.19-20; PLRE 2 "Fidelis").
7
book of the Variae.31 At this time as well, he wrote (and presumably delivered) an oration
celebrating the marriage of the king Witigis and Theoderic's grand-daughter
Matasuentha.32
Cassiodorus' famous "conversion," when he turned away from his political life
toward a religious one, is to be dated to this time as well. We noted above that
Cassiodorus had attempted to found a Christian school in Rome with the help of Pope
Agapetus. The composition of the De anima, a philosophical work backed up by
scriptural texts, may also be seen as part of Cassiodorus' process of directing his efforts to
ecclesiastical affairs.33 The preface to his Expositio psalmorum also dates his conversion
to the time he spent in Ravenna after he had ceased to be praetorian prefect.34
Between the end of the 530s and 550, we know almost nothing. It seems most
likely, however, that Cassiodorus remained in Ravenna until its fall to Belisarius in 540,
at which point he went to Constantinople with Witigis and Matasuentha either willingly
or under duress.35 We have fairly firm confirmation that Cassiodorus was in
Constantinople during 550 and 551. First, a letter of Pope Vigilius dated to 550 names
him specifically as being among a group of bishops and friends that were with him in
31 Variae 11 praef. 7: "Sed postquam duodecim libris opusculum nostrum desiderata fine concluseram, de animae substantia vel de virtutibus eius amici me disserere coegerunt..." "But after I had completed my little work in twelve books with a proper conclusion, my friends forced me to write about the substance or the virtues of the soul..."
32 See Traube's edition of the fragments of Cassiodorus' orations at the end of Mommsen's MGH edition of the Variae, p. 463.
33 O'Donnell 1979, 108-109. 34 Expositio psalmorum praef. 1-5: "Repulsis aliquando in Ravennati urbe sollicitudinibus dignitatum et
curis saecularibus noxio sapore conditis, cum paslaterii caelestis animarum mella gustassem, id quod solent desiderantes efficere, avidus me perscrutator immersi, ut dicta salutaria suaviter imbiberem post amarissimas actiones" "In the past in the city of Ravenna, after I had set aside the worries of my offices and the cares of the world with their poisonous smell, when I had had a taste of the heavenly psalter, the honey for souls, just as those who desire are accustomed to do, I immersed myself, an eager student, so that I might drink sweetly their health-bringing words after my very bitter actions." See also O'Donnell 1979,105.
35 See O'Donnell 1979, 104-16, Sundwall 1919, 154-156, Cappuyns 1949 and van de Vyver 1931.
8
Constantinople.36 Second, Jordanes, in the preface to his Getica, says that he borrowed
Cassiodorus' Gothic History from the latter's steward for three days. The presence of the
steward in Constantinople strongly suggests the presence of Cassiodorus as well.
Jordanes completed his work after the death of Germanus, the cousin of Justinian and
husband of Theoderic's granddaughter Matasuentha, in 551 and probably before the war
in Italy came to its final end in 553 with the final defeat of Teias and the remnant of the
Ostrogoths at Mons Lactarius near Cumae.37 It is likely that the Expositio psalmorum was
completed while Cassiodorus was still in Constantinople.38
From this point on we rely exclusively on Cassiodorus' own writings for
information about his life. With the imposition of the Pragmatic Sanction, the eastern
emperor Justinian's reorganization of Italy under Byzantine rule, it seems that
Cassiodorus returned to his family's estates in southern Italy at about age sixty-five. He
never returned to public life and instead founded a kind of monastery which he calls
Vivarium.39
There he devoted himself to a religious life and, in his writing, to largely biblical
pursuits. The preface to his De orthographia, written when he was ninety-three years old,
lists his works dating from after his conversion: the commentary on the psalms, the
Institutiones, a commentary on Romans, a book on the Artes of Donatus, a book on
etymologies, a book of Sacerdos on schemata, or forms of words, a book of tituli for the
scriptures, a book of complexiones, a literal paraphrase of the New Testament without the
36 PL 69.49 A-B "religiosum virum item filium nostrum Senatorem." 37 See also O'Donnell 1979, 132-136. 38 O'Donnell 1979, 131-176. 39 Inst. 1.29. The site of the Vivarium was established by Pierre Courcelle, MEFR 55 (1938) 259-307. A
sarcophagus, possibly that of Cassiodorus himself, was discovered there in 1952. See Courcelle 1957. See also O'Donnell 1979, 194-198.
9
gospels, and the De orthographia itself.40 None of these works shows original thinking,
but instead a desire to organize and distill more complicated and disparate material. At
Vivarium he also commissioned translations of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities and a
translation of the compiled church histories of Socrates, Theodoret, and Sozomen, known
as the Historia Tripartita.
Cassiodorus does not mention the Computus paschalis, which is transmitted along
with the manuscript of the Institutiones, and was probably also by Cassiodorus. It is a
short document, written in 562, which gives instructions on how to calculate the number
of years since the crucifixion when the indiction year is known.41 Cassiodorus died at
Vivarium sometime after 580, when he was more than ninety-three years old.
Cassiodorus was not a man of original intellect except insofar as he recognized
disorder and sought to correct it. His skills, reflected or developed by his public service,
were organizational and bureaucratic. His works, both from before and after his
conversion, in the main demonstrate a desire to teach and organize rather than to dispute
and convince, and Momigliano, in his memorable essay "Cassiodorus and Italian culture
of his time," places him among the men "who did not disdain the task of elementary
teaching when elementary teaching was needed."42
Cassiodorus' Chronica: historical setting and genre
Cassiodorus' Chronica comes to us as a work written for Eutharic Cilliga, the
40 De orth. praef. Keil, p. 144. See O'Donnell 1979, 223-238. Of these works we have only the Expositio psalmorum, the Complexiones in epistulas, the Institutiones and the De orthographia.
41 See Lehmann, P. 1959. 42 Momigliano, A. 1955, 245.
10
western consul for the year 519, who was both husband of Amalasuintha (the daughter of
Theoderic, the Ostrogothic king of Italy) and the apparent heir to the throne. In what
follows I will put the work briefly into its historical context and into the context of
Cassiodorus' public life before turning my attention to a discussion of the nature of the
work and its generic background.
In 518 Eutharic Cilliga was designated consul for the coming year, along with
Justin, the new eastern emperor. Justin had acceded to the throne on 10 July 518, the day
after the death of Anastasius, and it was normal for the new Augustus to hold the
consulship in the first full year of his reign.43 That Eutharic, the son-in-law of Theoderic,
the Ostrogothic king in Italy, should have been accepted as his colleague must have
indicated Justin's intentions to maintain, or improve, relations between Constantinople
and Ravenna. Eutharic was the first Goth to hold the consulship since his father-in-law
had held it thirty-five years before in 484, so this was a mark of some distinction and
comparatively rare. What is more, Cassiodorus tells us in a letter written on behalf of
Athanaric, Theoderic's grandson and successor, that Justin had made Eutharic, Athanaric's
father, his "son at arms," at what appears to be the same time that he was raised to the
consulship.44 Morehead notes that, since Cassiodorus does not mention Justin's naming
Eutharic as his son at arms in his Chronica, it is difficult for us to estimate "the role of the
43 CLRE, 23. It is strange that Anastasius' death and Justin's accession are not noted by Cassiodorus, though he clearly knows that Justin is emperor. Presumably he did not know the date of Anastasius' death and Justin's accession.
44 Cassiodorus, Variae, 8.1.3: "Vos [Justin] genitorem meum in Italia palmatae claritate decorastis. desiderio quoque concordiae factus est per arma filius, qui annis vobis paene videbatur aequaevus;" "You adorned my father in Italy with the renown of the [consul's] embroidered dress, and in your desire for concord he was made your son at arms, who seemed to you almost equal in years"; cf. Procopius de Bello Persico 1.11.22.
11
emperor in Eutharic's becoming consul."45 But given the very different purposes of the
two documents — the Chronica designed, as we will see, for an Italian audience and the
letter from Athanaric to Justin intended as an assurance to the emperor of the new
regime's policy of renewing good relations with the eastern court46— there is no reason
to doubt that Justin was eager that Eutharic be his colleague.
It is difficult not to see Justin's choice of Eutharic in 518 as conciliatory to
Theoderic's regime. The Acacian schism, initiated by the refusal of the Roman church to
countenance the formulas drafted by Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople, and put
forward by the emperor Zeno's Henotikon, had been bubbling away since 482 and had
been an unpleasant back-drop to Theoderic's entire reign in Italy. Both courts apparently
wanted the division ended. After the death of Pope Symmachus in 514, the emperor
Justin's predecessor Anastasius and the new pope, Hormisdas, had made some attempts to
settle the situation, but Hormisdas, supported by Theoderic and by the senate (on the
king's instructions), was not prepared to give ground.47 The new emperor's intentions may
have been to conciliate Theoderic (or Eutharic, since Theoderic was getting old and
Eutharic was his successor) and thus gain some traction in his negotiations with the
pope.48
The fact that the name of the Eastern consul, even though he was the emperor,
appears in no Western inscriptions is not surprising. It was normal during the last years of
the fifth and beginning of the sixth century for contemporary Western inscriptions to
45 Moorhead 1992, 201-202. 46 Wolfram 1988, 334. 47 Moorhead 1992, 194-200. 48 Wolfram 1988, 328-329.
12
record only the western consul.49 Likewise, in the east, Eutharic's name appears only in
two laws, an inscription and in a letter of John, the bishop of Constantinople.50 The failure
of either name to appear regularly in the other's part of the empire is not due to hostility,
or even lack of cooperation, but either to the collapse of the system of promulgation of
consular names, or, perhaps more likely, to the practical realization by the populace that
two names were unnecessary and unwieldy for dating years.
On 1 January 519 Eutharic took up his consulship in Rome. Cassiodorus is lyrical
in his assessment:
Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula editionibus singulis, stupente etiam Symmacho Orientis legato divitias Gothis Romanisque donatas. dignitates cessit in curiam, muneribus amphiteatralibus diversi generis feras quas praesens aetas pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit. cuius spectaculis voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub devotione transmisit. cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto amore civibus Romanis insederat ut eius adhuc praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam ad gloriosi patris remearet aspectus. ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis Romanisque dona largitus est ut solus potuerit superare quern Romae celebraverat consulatum (Chron. 1364).
In this year Rome saw many marvels in individual exhibitions, even Symmachus, the legate from the East, was amazed at the riches granted to Goths and Romans. He [Eutharic] gave honours to the senate. In shows in the amphitheatres he displayed wild beasts of various sorts which the present age marvelled at for their novelty. And for his spectacles, Africa in its devotion sent over the choicest of delights as well. And so, everywhere was filled with his high praise, and he was so firmly fixed in such a great love of the Roman citizens that when he returned to the sight of his glorious father at Ravenna, they still desired his presence. And there, with the exhibitions repeated, he showered such great gifts on Goths and Romans that he alone was able to surpass the consulship which he had celebrated at Rome.
Cassiodorus may have delivered an oration in praise of Eutharic before the senate on the
49 According to CLRE only two eastern consuls (out of a possible twenty-three years with eastern consuls) appear in inscriptions outside of Gaul in the thirty years between 489 and 519: emperor Anastasius in 492, CIL 9.3568 = 7ZCF3162A and P. Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei secoli VI-VII-VIII esistenti in Italia 7F(1978) #58, and, probably, a post-consular date in 518 recording the eastern consul of the year before, Anastasius, the great-nephew of the emperor, CIL Suppl. Ital. 1.863.
50 Laws: CJ5.27.9 and 2.7.25; inscription: SEG 29.642; letter: Coll. Avell. 159.
13
occasion of his consulship, although it is not clear precisely when it happened.51 At some
point before 1 January 519, however, Cassiodorus also completed his chronicle of world
history, encompassing the years from creation to 519.
There is no doubt the document was intended to be presented to Eutharic. The
preface, couched in the standard strains of panegyric, attributes the genesis of the work to
Eutharic's orders:
Sapientia principali qua semper magna revolvitis in ordinem me consules digerere censuistis ut qui annum ornaveratis glorioso nomine redderetis fastis veritatis pristine dignitatem (Chron. 1).
In your princely wisdom, through which you always think over great matters, you directed me to set the consuls in order so that you, who had adorned the year with your glorious name, might restore to the fasti the dignity of their ancient truth.
Furthermore, the final entry in the work lists the number of years covered by the whole
work: "ac sic torus ordo saeculorum usque ad consulatum vestrum colligitur annis
VDCCXXF7 "and thus the entire count of the ages up to your consulship comes to 5721
years." Cassiodorus reversed the consular names for the year 519, placing Eutharic's
name first and the emperor Justin's second, contrary to his usual practice in years when
an emperor held the consulship.52 We do not know whether the Chronica was actually
presented to Eutharic or not. Cassiodorus mentions it nowhere in any of his other
51 See Variae 9.25.3, where Cassiodorus, writing about himself to the senate on behalf of Athalaric, clearly says that he spoke in Eutharic's praise before the senate: "Patrem quoque clementiae nostrae in ipsa curia Libertatis qua disertitudine devotus asseruit!" "with what eloquence he [Cassiodorus] devotedly names the father of our Clemency in the very senate-house of Liberty!" There is some disagreement about the occasion of the first fragmentary speech, edited by Traube at the end of Mommsen's edition of the Variae, 465-472. Traube himself believed that it was delivered in 518 or 519, on the occasion of Eutharic's consulship (p. 463, esp. note 1), and he is followed by Wolfram 1988, 329 and Morehead 1992, 202. Others believe that the speech was delivered on the occasion of Eutharic's elevation as heir apparent, cf. O'Donnell 1979, 33.1 am inclined to follow Traube, noting Traube's own reservations. It may be that the fragmentary speech we have is a speech in praise of Eutharic, but not the one which Cassiodorus delivered before the senate.
52 See below, p. 188.
14
writings, which may mean it was never properly "published."53
The authorial attribution at the beginning of the work requires some explanation,
since it clearly post-dates the production of the work itself by at least fourteen years, and
possibly even more. The title reads, "In chronica magni aurelii cassiodori senatoris vc et
inl ex quaestore sacri palatii ex cons ord ex mag off ppo atque patricii praefatio'V'the
preface to the chronicle of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, vir clarissimus and
inlustris, ex-quaestor of the sacred palace, ex-consul, ex-magister officiorum, praetorian
prefect and patrician." Mommsen notes in the preface to his edition that these titles, since
they indicate that he had been praetorian prefect, are suitable for 537, but not for 519
when Cassiodorus had not yet even taken up the post of magister officiorum.5* Mommsen
suggests, perhaps correctly, that a scribe transferred the title from a copy of the Variae,
where they correctly reflect Cassiodorus' position at the time of their publication, to the
Chronica, which may be the case. But whatever the reason for the misapplication of
Cassiodorus' offices, the specific title of the work itself, "Chronica,'''' must then come into
question, since it may well post-date composition. However, since Cassiodorus does not
mention the work anywhere else or refer to its name anywhere within the document, we
can go no further than expressing doubt and we will have to be content with calling the
work his Chronica, with the proviso that the name may not originate with Cassiodorus.
53 The work is not mentioned by anyone until the eleventh century, when it was used and noted, either directly or second-hand, by Hermannus Contractus at Reichenau (MGH.SS 5.83-86 esp. p. 86) in 1054. Mommsen 1894, 118, suggests that Hermannus and the anonymous author of an eleventh century universal history (MGH.SS 13. 61-72) were both dependent on an earlier, larger chronicle, which is now lost.
54 Mommsen 1894, 111.
15
What Kind of Document is It?
From the very beginning, Cassiodorus identifies the fasti as being the primary
focus of his work. His introduction indicates his clear direction when, as we have seen
above, he claims to be writing at Eutharic's behest to restore to the fasti their ancient
truthfulness. He goes on: "Parui libens praeceptis et librariorum varietate detersa operi
fidem historicae auctoritatis inpressi'VI have willingly obeyed your orders and, with the
mistakes of the booksellers cleansed away, I have stamped upon the work the
trustworthiness of historical authority." He is claiming nothing less than to provide a
complete, authoritative, and accurate consular list with none of the mistakes found among
those produced by the booksellers or rather by their copyists. It is only as an afterthought
that he concludes his introduction: "quatenus vester animus per inlustres delectatus
eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem"/"so that your mind,
delighted by famous events, may run through the very long age of the world in a pleasing
abridgement." In concentrating on an accurate consular list as his chief aim, he thus
invites comparison of his work with other consular lists which were in circulation in the
late fifth and early sixth centuries.
The Chronica as Consularia
The works which Cassiodorus was striving to correct are the anonymous fasti and
consularia (so named by Mommsen) which seem to have been produced by booksellers
and copyists in late antiquity.55 We must be careful, then, not to compare his work with
that of Eusebius/Jerome, Hydatius or the Gallic Chronicle of 452, none of which include
55 Burgess 1993, 179-181.
16
consular years, or even Prosper of Aquitaine or Marcellinus comes, both of whom did
date by consular years. All of these produced chronicles very different from what
Cassiodorus was consciously attempting to write.
Our chief points of comparison will be with the anonymous Latin consularia
which have survived, sometimes only in bits and pieces, from late antiquity. There are
several good examples: the Fasti Vindobonenses priores and posterlores, the Excerpta
Sangallensia,56 the Descriptio consilium,57 and the Consularia Ravennatia™ Several texts
which are very similar to consularia could also be added to this list: the Paschale
Campanum, an easter list with historical notes added,59 and the first part of the chronicle
of Marius of Avenches.60
Burgess has outlined briefly the difference between what we call chronicles and
what we call consularia. While recognizing that clear-cut distinctions are not always
possible, Burgess notes four specific charateristics of consularia: 1) the consular list
occupies the attention of the author particularly and historical notes are unevenly
distributed through the years, with some clumps of events spanning a few years followed
by long stretches with no events at all, 2) the use of precise dating terminology,
sometimes wtih specific days or months, and with the frequent use of the terms "hoc
consule" or "his consulibus" at the beginning of each historical entry, 3) a concentration
on the deeds of the emperor in particular and with the state more generally, 4) an
56 Both Chron. Min. I 274-336. 57 Burgess 1993; and Chron. Min. I 197-247. 58 Bischoff, B. and Koehler, W. 1939. 59 Chron. Min. I 306-320 and 745-749. 60 Chron. Min. II 232-236. I would also add the fragmentary epitome of Livy found in P. Oxy. 668
which dates to the third century. Although it is not strictly speaking consularia, since the information was extracted from Livy, it also has many of the characteristics of consularia.
17
avoidance of ecclesiastical material, and 5) a distinctive, neutral grammatical style.61 He
adds a fifth characteristic later on: that the consularia tend to concentrate on events local
to where they were produced, kept up or used.621 will demonstrate in what follows that
all of these characteristics are present in Cassiodorus' work, though his Chronica also
contains elements of what we normally regard as characteristic of the chronicle-style
exemplified by Eusebius/Jerome.
As I noted above when discussing the introduction to the Chronica, Cassiodorus
underscores his intention to restore to the fasti the "veritatis pristine dignitatem " and
certainly the consular list was at the heart of his efforts. Apart from a few pages taken
from Jerome at the beginning of his work (to which I will return below), most of the
Chronica focuses on the consular list. Cassiodorus worked hard, as we will see, to make
Jerome's regnal years correspond with the consular years, and also devoted a great deal of
energy to making sure the consular list after 458 was as complete as it could be. Finally,
his list of sources at the end of his work focusses on his sources for the consular list and
chronology: Livy, Aufidius Bassus and Victorius of Aquitaine for the consuls and Jerome
for chronology,63 but leaves out those to whom he went only for historical information,
Eutropius, Prosper and an unnamed consularia or chronicle. Thus, his assertion in his
introduction that he had "stamped onto the work the trustworthiness of historical
authority" refers specifically to the sources which he names at the end of the work. Those
sources were primarily for consuls and chronology, and not for historical data.
Burgess notes the scattered nature of historical entries in the consularia, and on a
61 Burgess 1993, 178-179 and Mosaics, forthcoming. 62 Burgess 1993, 181. 63 Chron. 1365-1370.
18
first read-through of the Chronica, Cassiodorus' choice, arrangement and distribution of
historical notes appears haphazard at best. The Republican years, for which an epitome of
Livy was his source, are scarcely more than a consular list, with only thirty-seven
historical notes from 509 BCE, the year of the first consuls, to 44 BCE, the assassination of
Julius Caesar. As we might expect, though, the number of historical notes in Cassiodorus
increases in the years devoted to the late Republic and the early imperial years up to the
year of the crucifixion. Where Jerome was Cassiodorus' chief source, his historical notes
are more frequent, but even so stretches of five or six years (and a few even longer)
where he records no events are not uncommon. Even during Cassiodorus' own lifetime
and the reign of Theoderic there are two long stretches where there are no historical
events (494-499 and 509-513). While the lack or availability of historical material in
Cassiodorus' sources may explain the differences between the Republican years and the
imperial ones, Cassiodorus must have made a deliberate choice to leave out many
historical events of his own time.
Burgess' second characteristic of consularia is the use of precise dates, the use of
"hoc consule" or "his consulibus" before each entry, and the use of "eo anno" or "eodem
anno" to join together two historical events in a single year. This is a strongly marked
stylistic characteristic which one does not see in Prosper, Marcellinus or Victor of
Tunnuna, all of whom dated their chronicles by consular years, whereas it does occur in
Marius of Avenches and the anonymous consularia in Chronica Minora I. By omitting
terms an author can give the effect of a narrative that hangs together. By including them,
the focus turns to the dating of single events to single years. Cassiodorus is not given to
19
using precise dates in his entry, but he almost unfailingly begins each entry with "hoc
consule" or "his consulibus." These terms do not occur in either P. Oxy. 668 or
Obsequens, two witnesses to the Livian epitome Cassiodorus used, nor does Jerome use
them. Therefore, Cassiodorus either found the expressions in the consularia he likely used
for his historical entries after Prosper ran out in 455 or the expressions were so closely
attached to the genre that he used them without much reflection.
Burgess' third and fourth points are closely related: the consularia pay attention to
the business of the emperor in particular (to which I would add matters pertaining more
generally to the Roman state) and almost entirely avoid reference to matters of
ecclesiastical politics and doctrine. This is markedly true in Cassiodorus' work as well,
despite his heavy use of Jerome and Prosper, whose interest in ecclesiastical matters
stands out: both regularly record councils, doctrinal disputes, and the elevation of bishops
and patriarchs, and neither hesitates to draw explicit links between secular affairs with the
will of God.64 Cassiodorus does almost none of this and concentrates almost exclusively
on the deaths, accessions and deeds of emperors, along with the successes and growth of
the Roman state and the foundation of cities.
Cassiodorus' concentration on these particular things is brought out very clearly in
a more detailed comparison with Jerome and Prosper. It is possible to divide Jerome's
entries into six broad categories: secular history, ecclesiastical history, notes on famous
64 Cassiodorus himself discusses chronicles by Christian authors at Institutiones 1.17.2. He mentions the chronicles of Jerome, Marcellinus and Prosper, but does not include his own. This would appear, at least, to suggest that he did not regard his own work as a chronicle, in the technical use of the term, but there are several other reasons why he might not have included it. The Institutiones appears to contain only works which he had in his library at Squillace, and it is possible that his own Chronica was not there. Furthermore, Cassiodorus' own list of his works in the de Orthographia includes only his work from the Expositio Psalmorum on, and it is possible that he only considered those things he wrote after his conversion to be worth mentioning. See O'Donnell 1979, 113-114.
20
authors and teachers, portents and natural events, and notes on the city of Rome.65 If we
choose as a time frame the period from the crucifixion to 378 CE, when Cassiodorus used
Jerome most heavily, we find 580 separate lemmata by Helm's divisions.
If we divide those 580 entries up according to the above categories, we get 284
entries, or 49% of the total, on secular history;186 entries, or 32% of the total, on
ecclesiastical history; 53 entries, or 9% of the total, on famous authors and teachers; 28
entries, or 5% of the total, on portents or natural events; and 27 notes, or 5% of the total,
on the city of Rome.66 Turning to Cassiodorus and dividing his entries, almost all of
which were taken from Jerome, into the same categories, we come up with the following:
of 143 entries between the crucifixion and 378, 100, or 60% of the total, relate to secular
history; 9, or 6% of the total, are ecclesiastical history; 13, or 9% of the total, are about
authors and teachers; 5, or 3% of the total, are portents or natural events; and 17, or 12%
of the total, are about the city of Rome.
Two points are immediately obvious. The close comparison of Jerome and
Cassiodorus fully supports placing the Chronica in the category of consularia, as
discussed above. Cassiodorus almost completely avoids ecclesiastical matters: his work is
resolutely secular in design and outlook. What is more, of his nine notes on ecclesiastical
history, seven could just as well belong to other categories since three are directly related
to the city of Rome and the presence there of Peter and Paul (651, 671, 689), three are
65 These divisions ae necessarily a little arbitrary and they are, I confess, at least in part dictated with a view to Cassiodorus' own historical entries. Sometimes it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between, for instance secular and ecclesiastical history, or ecclesiastical history and famous authors. But on the whole it holds up well. Although in what follows I calculate percentages, which gives the impression of precision, in fact it is not possible to come to any firm statistical conclusions: the sample is too small and the material too slippery. The numbers I use are only rough guides.
66 There are two notes on chronology which I have left out of the count.
21
famous Christian authors: Tertullian (889), Origen (891), and Cyprian (964), and one
details Valerian's capture and servitude in Parthia (966), and links it, following Jerome,
with his persecution of the Christians. Of the remaining two, one is the crucifixion itself
(635), which is a chronological keystone, and the other, strangely, notes the rise of the
Manichaean heresy (1001).
The second point is the one already noted by Mommsen: Cassiodorus devotes a
great deal of space to notes on the city of Rome.67 While just 5% of Jerome's entries
relate to the buildings and infrastructure of the city, Cassiodorus devotes fully 12% to the
city itself. A large number of these entries describe the construction of buildings. As
Burgess noted, one of the characteristics of the consularia is that they often concentrate
on local events. Cassiodorus' work is decidedly Romanocentric.
What else can be said of the comparison between Cassiodorus and Jerome? The
amount of space given over to famous authors and to natural events and portents is
sufficiently similar in both authors as not to provoke further comment, but more could be
said about the notes on secular history. If Cassiodorus avoided ecclesiastical history it
stands to reason that the percentage of secular events would rise proportionately, but we
can go further by dividing the historical events he chooses into sub-groupings. In
Cassiodorus, as in Jerome, many of the historical notes relate the deaths and accessions
of emperors and pretenders : 10% in Jerome, but fully 34% in Cassiodorus. But
Cassiodorus was deeply concerned with making his consular list dovetail with the regnal
years of emperors, so it should come as no surprise that he would need to include all the
67 Mommsen 1894,113.
22
accessions and lengths of reigns he found in Jerome.68 But even a casual reading of
Cassiodorus' work shows that he gives particular attention to the expansion of the empire
and the battles won by Roman armies. Of fifty-seven entries which I classify as "secular
history," twenty-two are devoted to the growth of empire.69 The deeds of the emperor
stand out in Cassiodorus' work.
Cassiodorus' selection of material from Prosper roughly mirrors his use of Jerome,
with a few provisos. Prosper, more focused than Jerome, was concerned almost
exclusively with political and ecclesiastical history. Whereas Jerome has a large number
of entries devoted to secular authors, the city of Rome and natural disasters and portents,
Prosper has virtually none in the period from 379 to 455, the history of which he wrote
himself. As he had done when Jerome was his source, however, Cassiodorus includes
very few of Prosper's entries on ecclesiastical history, and the four he does include deal
with famous men: three of them the most famous Christian leaders in the Latin-speaking
world: Ambrose (380), Martin of Tours (381), Jerome (385) and Augustine (395). None
of Prosper's numerous and often lengthy notes on the accessions of the bishops of Rome,
heresies and church councils made the cut. There is less attention given to the deeds of
emperors, but considering the dire events for the western empire in the first half of the
fifth century, Prosper's notes on secular history, as one would expect, deal primarily with
the movements of barbarian armies, particularly Goths, Vandals and Huns, as well as a
handful of Roman usurpers and the actions of Aetius. Still, the "action" is heavily focused
68 See my detailed discussion below, pp. 207ff.. 69 Three of these notes are about Judaea, a subject which naturally occupies a great deal of space in
Jerome's work. Of Jerome's 26 entries on Judaea, Cassiodorus has chosen three, the capture of Jerusalem, and the refounding of Jerusalem and Emmaus under the empire which demonstrate the establishment of Roman authority in that region.
23
on the western empire, Italy and the actions of individual rulers and commanders.
We can see, then, that in the details Cassiodorus chose from Jerome, he had
specific generic goals: secular, political history set into a strict chronological structure.
The inclusion of these sorts of details is characteristic not only of the anonymous
consularia we have, but also of the inscriptionalyasfr' from the early empire, many of
which were certainly still visible in many town centres in Italy.70
The fifth characteristic noted by Burgess is that they frequently record events of
strictly local interest. He attributes this chiefly to the chronological nature of the
documents. As he says, "Few Romans...would remember what they were doing when X
and Y were consuls, but if they were asked what they were doing when the ground in the
Forum of Peace rumbled for seven days...they would have an easier time of it."71 He goes
on to note, though, that as these events receded into the past, they were only of
antiquarian interest, and were copied and re-copied along with the consular list for no
practical reason. There are, in fact, few events such as Burgess describes in Cassiodorus'
work. He includes a handful of strange occurances and natural disasters, but none of
those relating directly to Rome occurred even in the fifth century, much less the sixth.
But Cassiodorus does devote a great deal of attention to the city itself, its buildings and
celebrations, from very early on in his work. Mommsen noted this characteristic in his
edition, and therefore suggested that the Chronica, which he calls a "commentarius," was
"scriptus in usum plebis urbanae (nam dominantur in eo quoque ludi et aedificia urbis
Romae), "written for the use of the urban population (for games and buildings are also
70 See, for instance, the Fasti Capitolini and the Fasti Ostienses, Degrassi 1947. 71 Burgess 1993, 181.
24
predominant in it)."72 This suggestion overreaches the evidence we have, but there is no
doubt that the Chronica exhibits strong local interest in the city of Rome.
One oddity about the work, which may well strengthen the view that its very
urban and Roman flavour was a deliberate compositional decision, stands out:
Cassiodorus transferred the consular names into the nominative case, when his sources
and all the other manuscript fasti and consularia use the ablative. It is virtually certain
that he did this himself, but there is no clear reason for it. It is possible that, since the
normal practice in the inscriptional fasti was to list the consular names in the nominative,
Cassiodorus' change had its roots in his antiquarianism or, as I will suggest below, was a
deliberate attempt to connect his own list with the monumental lists of an earlier time still
on display.73 We do not know when the arch of Augustus, to which the Capitoline fasti
were attached, was destroyed, and there is no reason to think that it was not still in the
forum for all to see in 519. Many other cities in Italy had inscribed fasti as well. If it is
true that Cassiodorus was deliberately attempting to mimic the practice of these
inscriptions, we can take this as further encouragement to read his Chronica as consularia
rather than a chronicle.
Of course things are not as black and white as this. The Chronica also has several
elements which we tend to think of as belonging to the genre of the chronicle,
exemplified particularly by Eusebius/Jerome and their continuators. The early pages of
Cassiodorus' work draw almost exclusively on Jerome and begin with the creation of the
world and with Adam, as Eusebius had done, whereas no consularia which we have do
72 Mommsen 1894, 113. 73 Despite the availability of inscriptional lists, Cassiodorus used manuscript fasti to compile his own list
for the Republic and early empire.
25
this. Cassiodorus follows the biblical chronology he found in Jerome and then moves to
the Assyrian, Latin and Roman kings, also from Jerome. At the end of his work,
moveover, he includes a supputatio in the style of Eusebius and Jerome, where he adds
up all the years which have passed since the creation of the world - again, not
characteristic of consularia. But even through this material, Cassiodorus' focus is
resolutely on chronology and on secular rulers, and the historical material he includes
matches the characteristics of the consularia outlined above.
26
Chapter 2: The Text
The Manuscripts
Only two manuscripts of Cassiodorus' Chronica survive, Parisinus Latinus 4860
in the Bibliotheque Nationale and Monacensis 14613 in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.
Parisinus Latinus 4860 is a tenth-century manuscript, copied between 939 and 954 at the
library of the monastery of St. Stephan in Mainz.74 It contains many works by a variety of
authors, almost all relating to chronography and chronology. The codex is almost
certainly a copy of a codex which was at the monastery at Reichenau in the middle of the
ninth century. It is described by Reginbertus, who was the librarian there between 835
and 842. He wrote:
In tertio libro habentur chronica Eusebii Caesariensis episcopi et Hieronymi presbyteri et Prosperi. Et chronica Cassiodori Senatoris, et chronica Iordanis episcopi et chronica Melliti. Et chronica Bedae presb. et chronica excerpta Isidori episcopi et chronica brevis. Deinde notarum Plinii Secundi lib. I et notarum Isidori ep. lib. I et notarum de naturis rerum Bedae presb. liber excerptus ex diversis lib. I et epistolae Victoris et Dionysii de ratione cycli paschalis. Et de cyclis decennovalibus cycli XXVIII. Et versus diversi de septem diebus et mensibus et XII signis vocabulis. Et martyrologium per anni circulum.75
Contained in the third book are the chronicles of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea and the presbyter Jerome and of Prosper, the chronicles of Cassiodorus Senator, the chronicles of the bishop Jordanes and the chronicles of Mellitus. Also the chronicles of the presbyter Bede and the excerpted chronicles of bishop Isidorus and a short chronicle. Then one book of the notes of Plinius Secundus and one book of the notes of Bishop Isidorus and a book of notes on the nature of things by the presbyter Bede
74 Mommsen dates the manuscript convincingly and describes its contents in detail, 1894, 363-365. 75 Lehmann,P. 1918, 258.
27
excerpted from various sources and the letters of Victor and Dionysius on the calculation of the Easter cycle. And about the nineteen cycles of twenty-eight. And a variety of verses about the seven days, and the months and the twelve word-signs. And an annual martyrology.
Apart from a few insertions and a few things left out by Reginbertus, this list matches
almost perfectly the list of works in Par. Lat. 4860.76 The latter must be a copy of the
former. Reginbertus does not mention the poem of Victorius Scholasticus to the bishop
Jordanes which follows Cassiodorus' Chronica, but it only occupies a single page and is
easily missed. The codex was brought to Paris from Mainz by Jean-Baptiste Colbert in
the seventeenth century and was subsequently moved to the Bibliotheque Nationale.77
Monacensis 14613 was originally part of the library at the monastery of St.
Emmeram at Regensburg, but is now in Munich.78 It was written in the eleventh century
and includes the chronicles of Hermannus Contractus (who lived at Reichenau and seems
to have used Cassiodorus) and Cassiodorus, followed immediately by the same poem
from Victorius Scholasticus to Jordanes which appears after Cassiodorus' Chronica in the
Paris manuscript. In copying Cassiodorus' Chronica the scribe deliberately omitted many
consular names, presumably because he believed the historical events to be the most
interesting and worthy of recording. Pertz noted in his introduction that the chronicle of
Hermannus shows similar abbreviation, but also includes information not in other copies
of Hermannus.79 Hermannus' chronicle ends in 1054 and the Monacensis is a very early
copy of Hermannus. Cassiodorus was one of Hermannus' sources for his work, and
therefore Pertz suggested that the Monacensis contained a copy of Hermannus' autograph
76 Itemized by Mommsen 1892, 364-365. 77 Mommsen, 1892, 363. 78 The codex is described by Pertz in MGH SS 5, 1894, 72-73 and is discussed briefly by Mommsen
1894,118. 79 Pertz 1894, 72.
28
with his source Cassiodorus thrown in for good measure. Based, then, on Pertz's
argument, Mommsen suggested that the Monacensis was a copy of the same manuscript
at Reichenau from which the Paris codex was copied.
If the two manuscripts were not copied from the same archetype, they are
certainly very closely related. While M has many omissions which makes a complete
comparison impossible, both share a number of copyists' errors which must go back to a
common source, e.g. "L Papirius iun" for "L Papirius IIII" (239) and "Iullo sanctionibus"
for "Iullus Antonius" (585). P has a number of divergences from M, which Mommsen
(correctly, I think) attributed to the scribe of the manuscript rather than the archetype. The
scribe corrected Cassiodorus' work through reference to Jerome's chronicle which
precedes Cassiodorus in the codex. At 32 and 43 he adjusted the regnal years of the
Assyrian kings to match those in Jerome, and appears to have done the same at 527,
where he gives Jerome's number of four years and six months for Julius Caesar's reign,
whereas M has four years and seven months. He also corrected the name of the Assyrian
king "Molechus" to "Bolechus" (15), which is closer to what he found in Jerome, and
restored the missing king Panias, presumably because the tally of regnal years of the
kings at the end of the list (43) did not add up in the manuscript he was copying from.
Mommsen believed that the scribe of P had also dropped the consuls of 297 CE in order to
make the number of consular years correspond with the number of Diocletian's regnal
years, but I suspect that those consuls were missing from the archetype of P and M, as I
explain below.80
The third major witness to the text of the Chronica is Johannes Cuspinianus'
80 See below, p. 120ff..
29
posthumously published work, De consulibus Romanorum commentarii. The work is a
transcription by Cuspinianus, probably of the Reichenau archetype of Cassiodorus'
Chronica with an extensive commentary by Cuspinianus himself. Cuspinianus used a
great many authors to supplement Cassiodorus, including Livy, Jerome, Tacitus and the
Fasti Vindobonenses priores (which used to be called the Anonymus Cuspiniani). He also
corrected particularly the praenomina of consuls freely based on his other sources. His
readings of Cassiodorus are thus untrustworthy since he often does not say that he has
corrected Cassiodorus with reference to another author when it is clear he has. For
instance, at Chronica 464 Cuspinianus switched the praenomen of Lutatius from L
(which appears in both manuscripts) to Q only on the basis of Julius Obsequens, the
single edition of whose work, printed by Manutius in 1508, was a text fraught with
errors.81 On the subject of altering what he found in his manuscript of Cassiodorus he
says of the consuls of Chronica 666, Tiberius III et Antonius, which he knew to be
incorrect, "Sic in Cassiodori exemplo unico inveni. Quanquam de Claudii Tiberii
consulatibus abunde iam scripserim, nolui tamen quicquam in Cassiodoro frivole, ne quis
temeritatis me accusaret, immutare'V'This is the way I found it in the single copy of
Cassiodorus. Although I have already written fully about the consulships of Tiberius
Claudius, I nevertheless did not wish to change anything in Cassiodorus frivolously, lest
someone accuse me of being over-bold."82 On the other hand, at Chronica 488, where
both manuscripts list the consuls of 81 BCE as "M Tullius et Cn Dolabella," Cuspinianus
changed the consul prior to "M Sylvius Decola," seemingly on the basis of Appian alone,
81 The single manuscript from which the print edition was copied is now lost. 82 Cuspinianus, p. 389. The correct consuls for the year are Torquatus and Antoninus.
30
without even remarking on it.
Mommsen believed that Cuspinianus had the archetype from Reichenau, and this
may be correct, but Mommsen's argument is based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Cuspinianus only says that the codex was given to him by Johannes Stabius, the
cartographer, but we do not know where Stabius acquired it. Mommsen reasoned that
since the two existing manuscripts come from the same archetype at Reichenau and since
the copy Cuspinianus had was better than either of them, he must have had the Reichenau
archetype itself. But the manuscript which Cuspinianus used is lost and he often
"corrected" its readings without indicating he had done so, so we may never know what
manuscript he used or what its value is.83
The Text
Mommsen's text is quite good, with only a few mistakes, and the reader will find
few substantial differences between the text presented here and his. I have kept his
numbering system for ease of reference, but I have eliminated many of his notes which I
found rather more confusing than helpful: for instance, the AUC dates, the cross-
references to Cassiodorus' sources, and the numerous references in his critical apparatus
to Jerome, Prosper and Victorius. The traditions of those three authors are very uncertain,
too, and including their readings seems to me to be valueless and to introduce more
confusion and uncertainty in matters where uncertainty cannot be overcome. Where I
disagree with Mommsen in a reading or a restoration, I have noted it in the critical
apparatus.
83 Mommsen cites a 1597 inventory of Conrad Peutinger's library (Monacensis 402Id) which lists the "cronica Aurelii Cassiodori manu scripta," and he suggests that it is a copy of the work that Cuspinianus had. It is also not impossible that Peutinger himself acquired Cuspinianus' own copy after Cuspinianus' death. But it is unknown where this manuscript went.
31
P is slightly more trustworthy than M, if only because the scribe copied out the
entire chronicle, whereas M omits many pairs of consular names. In editing the text I
have taken a very conservative approach, to the extent of tolerating differences in the
spelling of names (like Caesar, Cesar) if the two manuscripts agree. Where the
manuscripts disagree and one is supported by Cuspinianus, I have sometimes followed
the reading of Cuspinianus, though carefully since, as I have noted, he used many other
sources in his work and emended freely, based both on them and on his own notions of
orthography. I have included Cuspinianus in the critical apparatus more fully in the years
for which Livy does not survive, and particularly where he cites no other sources for
names, but I have never chosen his reading over a reading in the manuscripts.
In general I have made decisions as follows. In a handful of cases I have not been
consistent, but I have tried to be as transparent in the apparatus as possible.
1. Each decision is to be made individually.
2. Cuspinianus must be treated carefully and should generally only be followed
when one of his readings agrees with one of the manuscripts.
3. When P and M agree, I have printed what they read.
4. In the orthography of all but proper nouns, when P and M do not agree and one
of them is correct, I have tended to follow the "correct" reading, reasoning that it is more
likely to have been correct originally than to have been made correct by accident.
5. On the other hand, on the few occasions in which Cuspinianus and one of the
two manuscripts agree in an "incorrect" spelling, I have printed the incorrect one.
6. In the matter of proper nouns, particularly consular names, when the two
32
manuscripts do not agree and neither is "correct," I have generally printed the reading of
the manuscript which agrees with Cuspinianus.
8.1 have avoided, wherever I could, making a decision on a reading based on what
we know is the "correct" answer. When M, P and Cuspinianus each have different
readings, and neither M nor P is "correct," I have chosen the reading from P since it is
slightly more reliable than M.
9. Similarly, where M is lacking, as it frequently is in consular names, I have tended
to print P no matter what the reading of Cuspinianus is.
Dating the Consulships
I have included dates for the consular years in the right-hand margins where it is
possible to do so. For the standard list of Republican consular dates to 31 BCE, I follow
Broughton (1951); for consular dates from 31 BCE to 519 CE, I follow Degrassi (1952).
Cassiodorus' Republican list is generally a fairly accurate representative of the work of
Livy and Aufidius Bassus from the 509 BCE up to 29 CE, which has made assigning dates
fairly straightforward. From 161 CE to 519 as well, his list, based mostly on Victorius of
Aquitaine, is quite complete, and does not pose many difficulties in assigning years to
consular pairs. The years between 30 CE and 160 CE, however, are notoriously bad in all
our manuscript sources, in some cases including consular pairs which clearly have no
basis in reality. For years when both consuls can be assigned to the same year, I have
assigned a year, which goes for both. When one consul can be assigned to that year, I
have shown it thus (47/—) with the year before the slash indicating the dateable consul,
and vice versa. Sometimes years overlap in which case I have dated it thus (76/77), again
33
indicating consul prior and posterior in Cassiodorus' list. Where no dating is possible, I
have assigned either "—" or "—/—."
Copying Consular Names by Columns
At 862 and 894 the manuscripts read "duo et Silani" and "duo et Aspri"
respectively. Mommsen appears to have believed that Cassiodorus made a mistake in
making these names nominatives from the ablative forms which he found in his source,
Victorius of Aquitaine, who has "duobus Silanis" and "duobus Aspris" for these years,84
and Mommsen's text reproduces the error. However, this is clearly a copyist's error.
Rather than writing out the list of consular pairs line by line, the copyist seems to have
made it his practice, for the Republican consuls, to write a column of the praenomina,
then the gentilicia, then a column of the word "et" and then the same process for the
second names. For the imperial consuls, where typically only the cognomina are
recorded, he wrote a column of cognomina, then a column of the word "et" and then a
second column of cognomina. Faster, probably, but the two consular pairs who shared the
same name got caught up in the columns and an "et" was added in between by mistake.
Furthermore, there are other examples of the same practice. At 584 P reads "P Aulus
Fabius et Q Aelius," where the correct reading (corrected by both Mommsen and
Cuspinianus) is "Paulus Fabius et Q Aelius." M omits this consular pair, but it appears
that in the archetype the initial "P" of "Paulus" was regarded as the praenomen, and
Aulus a second name. At 354 and 355, the praenomina of the first consul in each pair are
"M" and "Cn." The same praenomina occur immediately afterwards in the same place at
84 Mommsen 1894, 112. At 824, however, both manuscripts read "duo Augusti conss," which is correct.
34
356 and 357. The copyist, writing by columns, skipped the second "M" and "Cn." As a
result, the next ten consular pairs have incorrect praenomina for the first consul since the
whole list was bumped two spaces up. Whether this practice of copying down the
columns was the work of the scribe of the Reichenau archetype or some earlier version
cannot be said.85
85 The name of the sole consul of 399, Mallius Theodoras, is written in both manuscripts as "Manlius et Theodoras." Since this mistake appears in some of the manuscripts of Victorius, Cassiodorus' source, it is likely that he took it from Victorius and that it was not a copyist's error in Cassiodorus, at any rate.
35
Sigla:
P Parisinus Latinus 4860 saec. X M Monacensis 14613 saec. XI Cusp. Johannes Cuspinianus, De consulibus Romanorum commentarii, ex
optimis vetustissimisque auctoribus collecti (Basel, 1553).
36
In chronica magni aurelii cassiodori senatoris vc et inl ex
questore sacri palatii ex cons ord ex mag offppo atque
patricii praefatio.
1 Sapientia principali qua semper magna revolvitis in
ordinem me consules digerere censuistis ut qui annum
ornaveratis glorioso nomine redderetis fastis veritatis
pristine dignitatem. Parui libens praeceptis et librariorum
varietate detersa operi fidem historicae auctoritatis
inpressi, quatenus vester animus per inlustres delectatus
eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat
aetatem.
2 Ab Adam primo homine usque ad diluvium quod factum
est sub noe colliguntur anni 11 CC XL II. Diluvium autem
factum est propter gigantum nimiam feritatem. Qui
corporis magnitudine parique animi sevitia pervalentes
humanitatis ius omne confuderant.
3 Et a diluvio usque ad ninum qui primus omnium apud
assyrios regnavit ann. D CCC XC Villi.
4 REGES ASSYRII
5 Ninus itaque regnavit apud Assyrios annos LII.
6 Huius imperii anno XLHI natus est Abraham.
7 is etiam condidit Nineven.
incipitMP in Cusp. palaciiM EPO P PP Cusp. praefacioM 1 reuoluistis Cusp. degerere M consuistis P ornaveritis Cusp, rederetis M factis MP, emend. Panvinius lubens Cusp, hystoricae P impressi Cusp, etatem M 3 pimus M aput M 4 Assurii M 5 aput M 7 ninneven M Niniven Cusp.
37
8 Samiramis uxor Nini regnavit annos XLII.
9 Haec Babiloniae muros instaurasse memoratur.
10 Ninyas filius Nini et Samiramidis regnavit annos XXXVIII
n Arivis regnavit annos XXX.
12 Arelius regnavit annos XL.
13 Xerxes qui et Balaeus regnavit annos XXX.
14 Armametres regnavit annos XXXVIII.
15 Molechus regnavit annos XXXV.
16 Baleus regnavit annos LII.
17 Althadas regnavit annos XXXII.
18 Huius temporibus fuit Prometheus vir sapiens.
19 Mamythus regnavit annos XXX.
20 Magchaleus regnavit annos XXX.
21 Huius temporibus Atlans frater Promethei praecipuus
astrologus habetur.
22 Sfereus regnavit annos XX.
23 Mamylus regnavit annos XXX.
24 Sparaethus regnavit annos XL.
25 Huius temporibus a Cecrope rege Athenae sunt conditae.
26 Ascatadis regnavit annos XL.
27 Huius temporibus Moyses in monte Sina divinam suscepit
legem.
28 Amyntes regnavit annos XLV
9 HecM 12 annis Cusp. 13 Paleus M: Baleus Cusp. 15 Bolechus P : Belochus Cusp., ex Hier. sedadd. "a quibusdam hie Molochus scribitur. " 16 Baleus] MCusp. : Balaeus P 17 Alchadas M: Altadas Cusp. 19 Mamithus M: Mamyntus Cusp. 20 Magebateus M: Magehaleus Cusp. 21 precipuus P 22 Sereus M: Sphaereus Cusp. annis Cusp. 23 Mamylus] P Cusp. : Mamilus M annis Cusp. 24 Sparathus M: Sparetus Cusp. 25 Athene M 28 Amyntes] P Cusp. : AmintisM annis Cusp.
38
29 Huius temporibus Iesus successor Moysi terram
palestinorum Iudeae genti distribuit.
30 Belochus regnavit annos XXV.
31 Bellepares regnavit annos XXX.
32 Lamprides regnavit annos XXXII.
33 Sosares regnavit annos XX.
34 Huius temporibus equus velocissimus Pegasus invenitur.
35 Lampares regnavit annos XXX.
36 Panias regnavit annos XLV.
37 Sosarmus regnavit annos XVIIII.
38 Huius temporibus Argonautarum navigatio
39 et Orfeus Trax musicus opinabilis habetur.
40 Mithreus regnavit annos XXVII.
41 Huius temporibus Hercules athla exercuit
42 et Priamus apud Ilium regnat.
43 Per hos igitur reges Assiriorum colliguntur anni DCCCLII.
44 REGES LATINI
45 Latinus regnavit annos XXXII.
46 a quo Latini sunt appellati.
47 Huius imperii anno XXV Troia capta est. ad quern Aeneas
profugus venit factusque gener eius ei successit in regnum.
48 Aeneas post VIII annos Troiae captae regnavit in Italia
annos III.
29 succensor M iudex M 32 XXXIIIM: "triginta duos: alias, triginta tres " Cusp. 33 annis Cusp. 36 sic P, opinatur Mommsen ex Hieronymo xviiii M Pannias regnavit annos decern et novem Cusp., addens "Eusebius vero et Iornandes scribunt, hunc annis quadraginta quinque gubernasse. Vereor numerum hie corruptum Cassiodori. " 37 om.M 42 aputM regatM* 43 DCCCLIIIM 44 Regis M 46 apellati M 47 quern] Cusp. : quam MP 48 Aneas M annis tribus Cusp.
39
49 Ascanius filius eius regnavit annos XXXVIII
50 qui Albanum condidit.
51 Silvius Aenee filius de Lavinia regnavit annos XXVIIII.
52 Huius temporibus Homerus poeta fuisse memoratur.
53 Aeneas Silvius regnavit annos XXXI.
54 Huius temporibus Hebreorum rex David Hierosolimis
regnat.
55 Latinus Silvius regnavit annos L.
56 Huius temporibus Amazones Asiam vastaverunt.
57 Cartago condita est a carcedone tyrio ut quidam dicunt.
58 Salomon quoque filius David regnans Hierosolimis
templum famosissimum condit.
59 Alba Silvius regnavit annos XXXVIIII.
60 Aegyptus Silvius regnavit annos XXIIII.
61 Capys Silvius regnavit annos XXVIII.
62 Carpentus Silvius regnavit annos XIII.
63 Tiberinus Silvius regnavit annos VIII.
64 Agrippa silvius regnavit annos XL.
65 Aremulus silvius regnavit annos XVIIII.
66 Huius temporibus Lycurcus apud Lacedemonas iura
composuit.
67 Aventinus Silvius regnavit annos XXXVII.
68 A quo mons Romanus quia ibi sepultus est nomen accepit.
69 Procas silvius regnavit annos XXIII.
70 Amulius Silvius regnavit annos XLIII.
51 om. M Sylvius Cusp. Aeneae Cusp, ex Lavinia Cusp. 53 AneasM 54 reg. M 55 annis Cusp. 58 David filius M 60 XXIIIM 62 arpentus M: Calpetus Cusp, annis Cusp. 63 annis Cusp. 66 Licurcus aput M 68 Romanos Ma : Romanus Cusp. : Romanorum P 69 annis Cusp, xxviii M 70 Amulius] P Cusp. : Aemulius M
40
71 Qui fratrem suum Numitorem regno expulit cuius tempora
isti sunt adplicita.
72 REGES ROMANI
73 Romulus regnavit annos XXXVIII.
74 a quo Roma condita est.
75 et ex Latinis Romani sunt nuncupati.
76 Hie primum centum constituit senatores.
77 Huius temporibus Syracusa et Cantina in Sicilia conditae
sunt.
78 Numa Pompilius regnavit annos XLI.
79 Qui duos menses anno addidit Ianuarium et Februarium
cum ante hunc decern tantum menses apud Romanos
fuissent.
80 Capitolium quoque a fundamentis construxit.
81 Cuius etiam temporibus sibylla in Samo insignis habita est.
82 Tullus Hostilius regnavit annos XXXII.
83 qui primus apud Romanos purpura usus est.
84 Cuius temporibus Calcedon conditur et Bizantium quae
nunc Constantinopolis appellatur.
85 Ancus Martius regnavit annos XXIII.
86 Qui sexto decimo miliario ab urbe Roma Ostia condidit.
87 Tarquinius Priscus regnavit annos XXXVII.
88 Huius temporibus Massilia in Galliis condita est.
89 Servius Tullus regnavit annos XXXIIII.
90 Qui primus censum instituit civium Romanorum.
75 sunt conditi P : nucupati Ma 11 Cantina] P: Can t i l aM: Catinia Cusp. Sicila Ma
79 a p u t M fuissetM a 81 syb i l l aM 82 Tullus Ma Tullius M> 83 a p u t M 84 que M apellatur M 85 Martius] P Cusp. : Marcius M annis Cusp. 87 XXXVII I IM
41
91 His temporibus apud Persas Cyrus primum regnare coepit.
92 Tarquinius Superbus regnavit annos XXXV.
93 Huius temporibus Pytagoras physicus philosophus clarus
habetur.
94 Expulso autem urbe Tarquinio bini consules coeperunt pro
uno rege annis singulis administrare rem publicam.
95 HINC CONSULES
96 Iunius Brutus et L Tarquinius 509
97 Hi annum integrum minime tenuerunt. Ad peragendum
tempus aliis subrogatis, id est, L. Valerio Sp. Lucretio et
Horatio Pulvillo.
98 Valerius II et Titus Lucretius 508
99 Spurius Largus et Titus Herannius 506
100 Valerius III et P Postumius 505
101 Valerius IIII et Titus Lucretius II 504
102 Agrippa Menenius et P Postumius 503
103 Opiter Virginius et Sp Cassius 502
104 Postumus Cominius et T Largus 501
105 His consulibus dictator primus T Largus et magister
equitum Spurius Cassius ordinantur.
106 Servius Sulpicius et M Tullius 500
107 T Ebutius et L Vetusius 499
91 a p u t M c e p i t M 92 SupebisM" SuperbisA/6 94 Tranquinio M s igul isM a
plulicam M 99 Sp. Largius et T. Herminius Cusp, addens "ita in Cassiodori exemplo unico, quodhabui, hi coss. scribuntur: licet alter T. Heramnius perperam scriptus sit. " 100 II M 101 IIII] quartus M 102 Postumus M: Posthumius Cusp. 103 Opiter] P Cusp. : Opitus M Virginus P : Verginius Cusp. 105 His...Largus om. M Largius Cusp. Sp. Cassius Cusp.
42
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Q Cloelius et T Largius
A Simphronius et M Minicius
A Postumius et T Verginius
App Claudius et T Servilius
A Verginius et T Vetusius
Sp Cassius et Post Cominius
T Geganius et P Minutius
M Minutius et A Simphronius
Sp Nautius et Sex Furius
T Siccius et C Aquilius
Sp Cassius et Procul Virginius
Ser Cornelius et Q Fabius
L Aemilius et C Fabius
M Fabius et L Valerius
Q Fabius et C Iulius
K Fabius et Sp Furius
M Fabius et Cn Mallius
K Fabius et T Verginius
L Aemilius et E Servilius
C Horatius et T Menenius
A Verginius et Sp Servilius
C Nautius et P Valerius
L Furius et C Manilius
L Aemilius et Opiter Verginius
L Pinnarius et P Furius
Ap Claudius et T Quintius
L Valerius et T Aemilius
498
497
496
495
494
493
492
491
488
487
486
485
484
483
482
481
480
479
478
477
476
475
474
473/?
472
471
470
108 Largius] MCusp. : Largus P 114 Minutius] P Cusp. : Minucius M 115 Minutius] P Cusp. : Minucius M 125 Verginius] P Cusp. :VirgineusM 127 Menenius] MCusp. : Minenius P 130 L] P Cusp. : IM
43
135 T Numic ius et A Verginius 469
136 T Quintius II et Q Servilius 468
137 T Aemil ius II et Q Fabius 467
138 Q Servius et Sp Postumius 466
139 Q Fabius II et T Quintius III 465
140 A Postumius Albus et Sp Furius 464
HI L Aebutius et P Servilius 463
142 L Lucretius Tricipitinus et T Veturius 462
143 P Volumnius et Ser Sulpicius 461
144 P Claudius et P Valerius 460
145 Q Fabius et L Cornelius 459
146 L Minut ius et L Naut ius 458
147 Q Minucius et M Horat ius 457
148 M Valerius et Sp Verginius 456
149 C Veturius et T Nomi l ius 455
150 SpTarpeius etAAternius 454
151 His conss legati Athenas missi ad leges describendas.
152 P Curiacius et Sex Quintius 453
153 T Menenius et P Sestius 452
154 Hoc tempore a consulibus ad decemviros translatum
imperium est, per quos quadraginta annis administrata res
publica est. Atque iterum consules creati sunt.
155 L Valerius et M Horat ius 449
156 L Herminius et T Verginius 448
157 M Geganius et C Iulius 447
158 T Quintius IIII et Agr ippa Furius 446
142 L] P Cusp. :\M Tricipitinis M 146 Minucius M NauciusM 147 Horatius] P Cusp. : Honoratius M 150 Tarpeius] P Cusp. : Tarpeus M 153 T om.P Menenius M Cusp. :MemeniusP 154 puplicaM 157 GaniusM
44
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
M Ginutius et T Curiacius
L Papirius et L Semphronus
M Geganius et P Quintius
M Fabius et Post Aebutius
C Furius Tacitus et M Papirius
Proculus Geganius et L Menenius
T Quintius V et Agrip Manlius
M Geganius et L Servius
L Papirius cons
C Iulius et L Verginius
C Iulius II et L Verginius II
T Quintius VI et Cn Iulius
L Papirius et L Iulius Iulius
L Servius II et Hostus Lucretius
Cossus Cornelius et T Quintius
P Servilius et L Papirius
C Semphronius et Q Fabius
M Cornelius et L Furius
Q Fabius et C Furius
M Papirius et C Nautius
M Aemilius et C Valerius
Cn Cornelius et L Furius
L Lucretius et Ser Sulpicius
L Valerius et M Manlius
445
444
443
442
441
440
439
437
436
435
434
431
430
429
428
427
423
413
412
411
410
409
393
392
160 L Papirius] P Cusp. : I Papirius M Simphronius M: Sempronius Cusp. 163 G Fyrius M 167 conss. M 170 VII M Cusp, fortasse ex archetypo, sed lectio Parisini certe recta est. 171 L Iulius P I Iulius M 172 I Servilius M: L Sergius Cusp. 178 NatiusMa 181 I Lucretius M 182 I Valerius M
45
183 His conss post urbem captam redeuntes Gallos dux
Romanus nomine Camillus extinxit. De quibus triumphans
in urbe quasi et ipse patriae conditor Romulus meruit
nuncupari.
184 Tunc dignitates mutatae sunt et in loco consulum per annos
XVII tribuni militares fuerunt.
185 Quibus ob insolentiam remotis per annos IIII potestas
consulum tribunorumque cessavit.
186 Deinde rursus tribus annis per tribunos militares est
administrata res publica. Post annos vero XXIIII reversa
est dignitas consularis.
187 L Sestius de plebe et T Aemilius Mamercus patricius 366
188 L Genucius et Q Servilius 365
189 C Sulpicius Peticus et C Licinius 364
190 C Genucius et L Aemilius Mamercus 363
191 Q Servilius et L Genucius 362
192 C Sulpicius et C Licinius 361
193 C Poetilius et M Fabius 360
194 M Papirius et Cy Manlius 359
195 C Plaucius et C Fabius 358
196 L Marcius et Cn Manlius 357
197 Q Fabius et M Popillius 356
198 C Sulpicius Peticus et M Valerius 355
199 M Fabius et T Quintius 354
200 C Sulpicius et M Valerius 353
201 P Valerius et C Marcius 352
202 C Sulpicius et T Quintius 351
183 urbe] P : orbe M : urbem Cusp, nucupari Ma 184 mutate M 185 qui his M 186 pup l i caMi* 187 Aemilius] P Cusp. : E m i l i u s M 189 Peeticus M 195 Plaucius] M Cusp. : Plautius P 198 Peticis M
46
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
M Popilius et P Scipio
L Furius et App Claudius
M Valerius et M Popilius
T Manlius et C Plaucius
M Valerius et P Poetilius
M Fabius et Ser Sulpicius
C Marcius et T Manlius
M Valerius et A Cornelius
C Marcius et Q Servilius
C Plautius et L Aemilius
T Manlius et P Decius
T Aemilius et Q Publilius
L Furius et C Menius
His consulibus rostra navium de Antiatibus in foro fixa
sunt.
C Sulpicius etPAelius
L Papirius et K Duillius
M Valerius et M Atilius
T Veturius et Sp Postumius
A Cornelius et Cn Domitius
His conss pax cum Alexandra rege Epiri facta est.
M Marcellus et C Valerius
L Papirius et C Plaustius
L Aemilius et C Plautius
C Plautius et P Cornelius
350
349
348
347
346
345
344
343
342
341
340
339
338
337
336
335
334
332
331
330
329
328
203 Scipo M 206 Plaucius] Cusp. : Placius M: Plautius P 207 Poetilius] P Cusp. : PoeteliusM 212 Plautius] P Cusp. : Plaucius M 214 Publicius M: Cusp. om. nomen 218 Duillius] P Cusp. :DailliusM 219 om. M 225 Plautius] P Cusp. : Plaucius M 226 Plautius] P Cusp. : Plaucius M
47
227 L Cornelius et Q Publilius 327
228 C Poetelius III et L Papirius 326
229 His conss Alexandria in Aegypto condita.
230 L Furius et D Iunius 325
231 C Sulpicius et Q Aelius 323
232 Q Fabius et L Fulvius 322
233 T Veturius et Sp Postumius 321
234 Q Papirius et L Publilius 320
235 L Papirius et Q Aulius 319
236 M Folius et L Plautius 318
237 C Iunius et Q Aemilius 317
238 Sp Nautius et M Popillius 316
239 L Papirius IIII et Q Puplius 315
240 M Poetilius et C Sulpicius 314
241 L Papirius et C Iunius 313
242 M Valerius et P Decius 312
243 His conss per Appium Claudium censorem via facta et
aqua inducta est, quae ipsius nomine nuncupantur.
244 C Iunius et Q Aemilius 311
245 Q Fabius et C Marcius 310
246 Q Fabius et P Decius 308
247 Ap Claudius et L Volumnius 307
248 P Cornelius et Q Martius 306
249 His consulibus viae per agros publicae factae.
250 L Postumius et T Minutius 305
234 Pbli l iusM a 236 Plautius] P Cusp. : P l a u c i u s M 238 Nautius] P Cusp. : Naucius M Pupillius M: Popilius Cusp. 239 IIII] iun MP emendavi Puplius] MCusp. : P u b l i u s P 247 Claudius] P Cusp. : Cladius M 248 Martius] P Cusp. : Marcius M 249 facte M 250 Minutius] MCusp. : Minuc iusP
48
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
P Sulpicius et P Sempronius
L Genutius et Ser Cornelius
M Libius et L Aemilius
M Valerius et Q Apuleius
M Fulvius et T Manlius
L Scipio et Cn Fulvius
Q Maximus et P Decius
L Volumnius et App Claudius
Q Fabius et P Decius
L Postumius et M Atilius
L Papirius Cursor et Sp Carvilius
Q Fabius et D Brutus
L Postumius et C Iunius
P Cornelius et M Curius
M Valerius et Q Caeditius
Q Marcius et P Cornelius
M Marcellus et C Nautius
M Valerius et C Aelius
C Claudius et M Aemilius
C Servilius et L Caelius
304
303
302
300
299
298
297
296
295
294
293
292
291
290
289
288
287
286
285
284
252 Genutius] P Cusp. : Genucius M 253 Lybius P : Livius Cusp. 254 Apuleius] P Cusp. : Aputeius M 260 Postumius] P Cusp. : Postumus M 262 T Brutus M: om. Cusp, praenomen 265 Caeditius] P Cusp. : Caedicius M 267 Nautius] P Cusp. : Naucius M
49
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
P Cornelius Dolabella et Cn Domitius
C Fabricius et Q Aemilius
L Aemilius et Q Marcius
P Valerius et T Coruncanius
P Ulpicius et P Decius
C Fabricius et Q Aemilius
P Cornelius et C Iunius
Q Fabius et C Genucius
M Curius et L Lentulus
Ser Cornelius et M Curius
C Fabius et C Claudius
L Papirius Cursor et Sp Carvilius
K Quintius et L Genutius
C Genutius et Cn Cornelius
Q Ogulnius et C Fabius
P Sempronius et App Claudius
M Atilius et L Iulius Libo
D Iunius et N Fasius
Q Fabius et L Manlius
App Claudius et Q Fulvius
M Valerius et M Otacilius
L Postumius et Q Mamilius
L Valerius et L Otacicilius
Cn Cornelius et C Duilius
C Aquilius et L Cornelius
283
282
281
280
279
278
277
276
275
274
273
272
271
270
269
268
267
266
265
264
263
262
261
260
259
271 Domitius] P Cusp. : Domicius M 273-27'4 om. M 273 Martius Cusp. 274 Coruncanus Cusp. 285 Hos consules om. C, sed rest. Mommsen, recte credo. Adsunt in Cuspiniani libro, sed Me eos ex Eutropio se sustulisse testatur. 286 Sempronius] M Cusp. : Semphronius P 288 M Fasius M: Cn Fabius Cusp. 289 om. P Manulius Cusp. 292 Postumus M: Posthumius Cusp. 293 om. M Octacilius Cusp.
50
296 AAti l ius Calatinus et C Sulpicius 258
297 Cn Cornelius et C Atilius Erranus 257
298 Q Caedicius et L Manlius 256
299 M Aemilius Paulus et Ser Fulvius Nobilior 255
300 Cn Cornelius et A Atilius 254
301 Cn Servilius et C Sempronius 253
302 C Aurelius Cotta et P Servilius 252
303 L Caecilius Metellus et C Furius 251
304 C Atilius Regulus et L Manlius 250
305 P Claudius et L Iunius 249
306 P Servilius et C Aurelius 248
307 L Caecilius et N Fabius 247
308 M Fabius et M Otacilius 246
309 M Fabius et C Atilius 245
310 A Manlius et C Sempronius 244
311 C Fundanius et C Sulpicius 243
312 C Lutatius Cerconius et A Postumius 242
313 Q Lutatius Catulus et A Manlius 241
314 C Claudius Cento et M Sempronius 240
315 C Manlius et Q Valerius 239
316 His conss ludis Romanis primum tragoedia et comoedia a
Lucio Livio ad scenam data.
317 T Sempronius et P Cornelius 238/-
318 L Cornelius et Q Fulvius 237
319 C Licinius et P Cornelius 236
320 T Manlius Torquatus et C Atilius 235
297 om.M 298 Manlius] Erranus Mcf. 297 supra. 299 Fulvius] P Cusp. : Fulcius M 300 et om.M 301 om. M 302 Aurelius] P Cusp. : Cornelius M 304 om. M 306 om.M 307 Caecilius] P Cusp. : Cecilius M 308-310 om. M 310 Manilius Cusp. 312 Lutacius M: Luctatius Cusp. 313 Lutatius om. M: Luctatius Cusp. 316 comaediaP
51
321 L Postumius et Sp Carvilius 234
322 Q Fabius et M Pomponius 233
323 M Lepidus et M Oblicius 232
324 C Papirius et M Pomponius 231
325 M Aemilius et M Iunius 230
326 His conss Hamilcar Hannibalis pater in Hispania bellum
Romanis parans occisus est. Hie solitus dicere quattuor
filios contra populum Romanum velut catulos leoninos se
educare.
327 L Postumius et Cn Fulvius 229
328 Q Fabius et Sp Carvilius 228
329 P Valerius et M Atilius 227
330 L Apustius et M Valerius 226
331 C Atilius et L Aemilius 225
332 T Marcius et Q Fulvius II 224
333 C Flamminius et P Furius Pilo 223
334 M Marcellus et Cn Cornelius 222
335 P Cornelius et M Minutius 221
336 L Veturius et C Lutatius 220
337 His conss via Flamina munita et circus factus qui
Flaminius appel la te .
338 MLiv ius e t L Aemilius 219
339 His conss Hannibal Hamilcaris filius in Hispania bellum
molitur.
340 P Cornelius et T Sempronius 218
324-325 C Papirius et M Emilius Msed alios conss. om. : C Papyrius Cusp. 326 se add. Cusp, et Mommsen 329 om. M 331 om. M 332 Marcus M: Manlius Cusp. 335 Minutius] P Cusp. : Minucius M 337 Flamina] P M: Flaminia Cusp Flaminus Ma ape l l a t e M 338-339 om. M
52
341 Cn Servilius Geminus et C Flamminius 217
342 L Paulus et C Terentius Barro 216
343 T Sempronius et Q Maximus 215
344 Q Fabius Maximus et M Marcellus 214
345 P Maximus et T Gracchus 213
346 Q Fulvius Flaccus III et App Claudius 212
347 Fulvius Centumalus et P Sulpicius 211
348 M Marcellus et M Valerius 210
349 Q Fabius V et Q Fulvius Flaccus IIII 209
350 M Marcellus et T Quintius 208
351 C Claudius Nero et M Livius Salinator 207
352 L Veturius et Q Caecilius Metellus 206
353 P Scipio et P Crassus 205
354 M Cornelius et T Sempronius 204
355 Cn Servilius et C Servilius 203
356 M Servilius et T Claudius Nero 202
357 Cn Cornelius Lentulus et C Aelius Paeto 201
358 P Sulpicius et C Aurelius 200
359 L Cornelius et P Villius 199
360 Sex Aelius Paeto et T Quintius 198
361 C Cornelius et Q Minutius 197
342 Terentius] P Cusp. : Terrentius M 346 III et] P : et III M 348 et om. M 349-350 om.M 351 G Claudius M 352 om.M 353 C r a s s o M 354-356 om. M 356 P Servilius P, sed quia hocpraenomen et quod sequitur sunt eadem quae reperiuntur ad 354 et 355 in hoc ms. prior a praenomina 358-364 ad 356-362 et 366-370 ad 364-368 male applicantur quia librarius, scribens omnia praenomina in columna prima, deinde altera nomina in columna altera, etc., erraverat. 357 L Cornelius P P o e t a M 358 Sex Sulpicius P et om. M 359 C Cornelius P 360 L Aelius P Poeto M: Paetus Cusp. 361 L Cornelius P Minutius] P Cusp. Minucius M
53
362 L Furius et M Marcellus 196
363 L Valerius Flaccus et M Cato 195
364 P Scipio II et T Sempronius 194
366 L Quintius et Cn Domitius 192
367 P Scipio Nasica et M Acilius 191
368 L Scipio et C Laelius 190
369 M Fulvius et Cn Manlius 189
370 M Messala et C Livius Salinator 188
371 M Lepidus et C Flaminius 187
372 Sp Postumius et Q Marcius 186
373 His conss athletarum certamina primum a Fulvio edita.
374 App Claudius et M Sempronius 185
375 P Claudius et L Porcius Licinius 184
376 M Claudius et Q Fabius Labeon 183
377 His conss Hannibal apud Prusian veneno periit.
378 L Paulus et Cn Baebius 182
379 P Lentulus et M Baebius ?/i8i
380 A Postumius et C Tarpurnius 180
381 Q Fulvius et L Manlius 179
382 M Iunius et Cn Manlius 178
383 T Sempronius et C Claudius 177
384 Cn Cornelius et Q Petillius 176
385 M Lepidus et Q Mucius 175
386 Sp Postumius et Q Mucius 174
362 P Furius P Marcellus] P Cusp. : Marcellius M 363 om. M 365 Consules huius anni "L Cornelius et Q Minucius " voluit Mommsen restituere. Cuspinianus habet, sedex Livio. credo Cassiodorum hos non habuisse.367 M Scipio P 368 M Scipio P Laelius] P Cusp. : Lelius M 370-371 om. M 373 FlvioM"3 374 M Sempronius Labeon Mmale applicavit. 376 Labeon om. M, sedvide 374, supra. 383 om. M 385 om. M
54
387 L Postumius Albinus et M Popillius 173
388 C Popillius et P Aelius 172
389 P Licinius et C Cassius 171
390 A Hostilius Mancinus et A Atilius no
391 L Marcius Philippus et Q Servilius 169
392 L Paulus II et C Licinius 168
393 Q Aelius Paeto et M Iunius 167
394 M Mamercus et C Sulpicius 166
395 Cn Octavius et T Manlius 165
396 A Manlius et Q Cassius 164
397 T Sempronius et M Iuvencius 163
398 P Scipio Nasica et C Marcius 162
399 M Messala et C Fannius 161
400 L Anicius et M Cornelius 160
401 Cn Cornelius Dolabella et M Fulvius 159
402 M Aemilius et C Popillius 158
403 His conss metalla in Macedonia instituta.
404 Sex Iulius et L Aurelius 157
405 L Lentulus et C Marcius 156
406 P Scipio et M Claudius 155
407 L Postumius et Q Opimius 154
408 Q Fulvius et T Annius 153
409 Hi primi consules Kalendis Ianuariis magistratum inierunt
propter subitum Celtiberiae bellum.
4io M Marcellus et L Valerius 152
387 Potumius Abinus M: Posthumius Albinus Cusp. 388 om. M 390 et A Atilius om. M 392 om. M 393 Poeto M: Paetus Cusp. 394 Marcus Msedvide infra 398 : Marcellus Cusp., sed add. "in Cassiodoro scribebatur M. Mamercus." 395 Octavius] P Cusp. : Octavus M 396 om. M 397 Iuvencius] MCusp. : Iuvent iusP 398 Marcius] P : Martius Cusp. : Mamercus M 401 et om. M 402 Aemilius] P Cusp. : Aemelius M 407 om. M 409 Celtiberie M
55
411 L Lucullus et A Postumius 151
412 T Quintius et M Acilius 150
413 L Marcius et M Manlius 149
414 Sp Postumius et L Piso 148
415 P Africanus et C Livius 147
416 Cn Cornelius et L Mummius 146
417 Q Fabius Maximus et L Hostilius 145
418 Ser Calba et L Aurelius 144
419 App Claudius et Q Metellus 143
420 L Metellus et Q Maximus 142
421 Cn Cepio et Q Pompeius HI
422 Q Cepio et C Laelius 140
423 Cn Piso et M Popilius 139
424 P Scipio et D Brutus 138
425 M Aemilius et C Hostilius Mancinus 137
426 P Furio et Sex Atilius Serranus 136
427 Ser Fulvius et Q Carpurnius 135
428 His conss Aemilianus Scipio ob Numantinum bellum cum
candidatus non esset consul creatur.
429 P Africanus et C Fulgius Flaccus 134
430 C Mucius et L Carpurnius 133
431 P Popilius et P Sulpicius 132/-
432 P Crassus et L Valerius Flaccus 131
433 App Claudius et M Perpenna 130
434 C Sempronius et M Aquilius 129
415 Africanus] P Cusp. :Af f r i canusM 416 Mummius] MCusp. : N u m m i u s . P 417 et om. M 419 et om. M 420 om. M 421 et Q Pompeius om. M, sedvide 422, infra. 422 Laelius] P Cusp. : et O Lelius M 423 Popilius] M Cusp. : Pompilius P 424 Brutus] M Cusp. : Prutus P 425-426 om. M 426 Furius Cusp. 429 P Africanus] Cusp. : A Africanus P : P Affricanus M 431 om. M
56
435 Cn Octavius et T Annius 128
436 L Cassius et L Cinna 127
437 M Aemilius et L Aurelius 126
438 M Plautius et M Fulvius 125
439 C Cassius Longinus et C Sextius 124
440 Q Caecilius et T Quintius 123
441 Cn Domitius et C Fannius 122
442 His conss C Sextius oppidum aedificavit in quo Aquae
Sextiae in Galliis.
443 L Opimius et Q Maximus 121
444 P Manlius et C Papirius 120
445 L Caecilius et L Aurelius 119
446 M Cato et Q Marcius 118
447 L Caecilius et Q Mutius 117
448 C Linicius Geta et Q Maximus 116
449 M Metellus et M Scaurius 115
450 His conss L Metellus et Cn Domitius censores artem
ludicram ex urbe removerunt preter Latinum tibicinem
cum cantore et ludum talarium.
451 M Acilius Balbus et C Cato 114
452 C Caecilius et C Papirius 113
453 M Livius Drusus et L Piso 112
454 P Scipio et L Carpurnius Bestia 111
455 Sp Postumius et M Minutius 110
456 Q Metellus et M Silanus 109
435 Octavius] P Cusp. : Octavus M M>1 om. M 438 M Plaucius et M Aurelius M, vide 437, supra. 439-441 om. M 442 Hi M C Sextius] MCusp. C om. P edificavit M 443 Opimius] P Cusp. : Optimius M 447 om. M 448 Geta om. M 450 HiM CnMiciusM ludricamP talanumM calanum Cusp. 451 om. M 452 Caecilius] MCusp. : Cecilius P 453 om. M 455 et om. M Minutius] MCusp : Minucius P 456 om. M
57
457 Ser Galba et M Scaurus 108
458 L Cassius et C Marius 107
459 Q Servilius et C Atilius Erranus 106
460 His conss per Servilium Coepionem consulem iudicia
equitibus et senatoribus communicata.
461 P Rutilius Rufus et C Manlius 105
462 C Marius II et C Fl Fimbrius 104
463 C Marius III et L Aurelius Orestes 103
464 C Marius IIII et L Lutatius 102
465 C Marius V et M Aquilius 101
466 C Marius VI et L Valerius Flaccus 100
467 M Antonius et A Postumius 99
468 Q Metellus et T Didius 98
469 Cn Lentulus et P Crassus 97
470 Cn Domicius et C Cassus 96
471 His conss Ptolemaeus Aegypti rex populum Romanum
heredem reliquit.
472 P Crassus et Q Scaevola 95
473 C Coelius et L Domitius 94
474 C Valerius Flaccus et M Herennius 93
475 C Claudius et M Pulcher Perperna 92
476 L Marcius et Sex Iulius 91
477 L Caesar et C Rutilius Lupus 90
478 Cn Pompeius et L Porcius Cato 89
457 Scaurus] MCusp. : Scaurius P 458-459 om. M 459 Attilius Cusp. 461 Manlius] MCusp : Manilius P A&l C Maurius et C Finbrius M 463-466 om. M 464 Q Luctatius Cusp. 470 om. M Cn Domitius et C Cassius Cusp. 471 Ptolomaeus Aegipti M A12> om. M Caelius Cusp. 475 om. M 477 om. M 478 Pompeius] P Cusp. : Pompeus M
58
479 L Sylla et Q Pompeius 88
480 L Cinna et Cn Octavius 87
481 L Cinna II et C Marius VII 86
482 L Cinna III et Cn Papirius 85
483 L Cinna IIII et Cn Papirius II 84
484 His conss Asiam in XLIIII regiones Sylla distribuit.
485 L Scipio et C Norbanus 83
486 His conss capitolium custodum neglegentia concrematur.
487 Cn Carbo III et C Marius 82
488 M Tullius et Cn Dolabella 81
489 L Sylla II et Q Metellus 80
490 P Servilius et App Claudius 79
491 M Lepidus et Q Catulus 78
492 Mam Aemilius et D Brutus 77
493 Cn Octavius et C Curio 76
494 L Octavius et C Cotta 75
495 L Licinius Lucullus et M Cotta 74
496 M Lucullus et C Cassius 73
497 L Gellius et Cn Lentulus 72
498 Cn Aufidius et P Lentulus 71
499 M Crassus et Cn Pompeius 70
500 Q Metellus et Q Hortensius 69
501 His conss a Q Catulo reparatum dedicatumque capitolium
est.
502 L Metellus et Q Marcius 68
479 et ow. M 480-481 om. M 482 III om. M 483 om. M 484 XL M 486 negligentia M 488 C Dolabella M 489-496 om. M 499 Crassus] P Cusp. : Grassus M 500 et Q Quintius M 501 aq Catulo P : atque Catulo M 502 om. M
59
503 C Piso et M Glabrio 67
504 An Lepidus et L Tarquatus 66/65
506 L Caesar et Q Marcius 64
507 M Cicero et C Antonius 63
508 D Silanus et L Murena 62
509 M Pupius et M Valerius 61
510 His conss Catilina in agro Pistoriensi a C Antonio bello
peremptus est.
511 Q Metellus et L Afranius 60
512 C Caesar et M Bibulus 59
513 L Piso et A Gabinius 58
514 His conss Clodii rogatione Cicero in exilium est profectus.
515 P Lentulus et Q Metellus 57
516 His conss propter civiles dissensiones per SC de exilio
Cicero revocatur.
517 Cn Lentulus et L Philippus 56
518 Cn Pompeius et M Crassus 55
519 App Claudius et L Domicius 54
520 Cn Domicius et M Messala 53
521 Cn Pompeius et Q Metellus 52
522 M Marcellus et Ser Sulpicius 51
523 L Paulus et M Marcellus 50
524 L Lentulus et C Marcellus 49
504-505 Man Lepidus et [L Volcacius L Cotta et] L Torquatus rest. Mommsen. Hi consules absunt cum a Cuspiniano turn ab archetypo. Num adfuerint in epitome Liviana est ignotum. 506 Caesar] P Cusp. : Cesar M 509 Pupius] P Cusp. : Puppius M 510 Pistoriensis M pe rempt i sM 512 Caesar] P Cusp. : Cesar M 513 A Gabinius] P Cusp. : M Valerius M 514 rogac ioneM 515 P Lentulus] P Cusp. : L Lentulus M 516 Cicero] P Cusp. : C e r o M 517 om. M 520-521 om. M 524 om. M
60
525 His conss perniciosae in curia conflantur de Pompeio
Cesareque discordiae.
526 Sed Gaius Iulius Caesar de Galliis veniens Pompeium
fugavit Italia. Aurum atque argentum Romae de aerario
sustulit.
527 Ac primus Romanorum singulare optinuit imperium. a quo
Caesares Romani principes appellati. imperavit autem
annos IIII menses VI sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
528 IMPERATORES ROMANI
I
529 C Iulius Caesar II et P Servilius 48
530 Q Fusius et P Ciaticanus 47/?
531 His conss Caesar Pompeium Farsalico proelio superavit.
Pompeius fugiens in Aegyptum occisus est.
532 C Iulius Caesar III et M Lepidus 46
533 C Iulius Caesar IIII et Fab Maximus 45
534 His conss C Iulius Caesar per quadruum triumphavit.
535 C Iulius Caesar V et M Antonius 44
536 His consulibus M Antonius Lupercalibus sella aurea
sedenti Caesari diadema rennuenti imposuit. Atque Idibus
Martiis Caesar in Pompeia curia occisus est.
537 Cui successit Octavianus Caesar qui regnavit annis LVI
mensibus VI. Per quae tempora hi consules extiterunt.
II
538 C Pansa et A Hirtius 43
525 Pome ioM a CesaraqueM 526 Caesar] MCusp. : Cesar P Italia] Cusp, fortasse emend. : Italiam P M 527 A primus M Caesares] MCusp. : Cesares P VI] P : septem M 528 Imperatores I Romani P M 529 et P] P : P et M 530 Fusius] M Cusp : Fuvius P Ciaticanus Cusp M: Vaticanus P 531 Falsalico M: Pharsalico Cusp. Egyptum M 532 Lepidis M 534 quadruum] P M quadriduum emend. Mommsen, fortasse recte 536 Cesari P M a r c i i s M impompeia M: in Pompeiana Cusp. 537 extiterunt] M Cusp exstiterunt P
61
539 His conss Caesar Octavianus Antonius et Lepidus amicitiae
foedus inierunt.
540 M Cicero Caiete per Popilium militem occisus est annorum
LX trium.
541 Caesar Octavianus forum Augustum aedificavit.
542 M Lepidus et L Plancus 42
543 P Servilius II et L Antonius 41
544 Cn Domicius et C Asinius 40
545 L Censorinus et C Calvisius 39
546 App Claudius et C Norbanus 38
547 M Agrippa et L Caninius 37
548 His conss lacus Lucrinus in portum conversus est.
549 L Gellius et M Cocceius 36
550 Sex Pompeius et L Cornificius 35
551 L Scribonius et L Atratinus 34
552 C Caesar et L Vulcatius 33
553 Cn Domitius et C Sossius 32
554 C Caesar II et M Messela 31
555 His conss apud Actium M Antonius a Cesare superatur.
556 C Caesar III et M Crassus 30
557 His conss Nicopolim Caesar construit. ludos Actiacos
instituit.
558 Antonius a Caesare proelio peremptus Alexandriae in
mausoleo cum Cleopatra reconditur.
559 C Caesar IIH et Sex Apuleius 29
539 amic ic iaeM 541 Cesar P 545-546 om.M 548 conversum P 549 Gellius] P Cusp. : Genlius M Cocceius] P Cusp. : Cocceus M 550 Cornificius] P Cusp. Cernificius M 551 om.M 553 Domitius] P Cusp. : Domicius M 554 om.M Messela] P Messala Cusp. 555 a p u t M 557 Actiacus Pa 558 Cesare M conditur M
62
560 C Caesar V et M Agrippa II 28
561 His conss Parthorum dissensiones per Caesarem sedatae.
562 C Caesar VI et M Agrippa III 27
563 Caesar leges protulit, iudices ordinavit, provincias
disposuit et ideo Augustus cognominatus est.
564 Cuius temporibus floruerunt Vergilius, Horatius et Livius.
565 C Augustus Caesar VII et T Statilius 26
566 C Augustus Caesar VIII et M Silanus 25
567 His conss Cantabros, Germanos, Salassos Cesar perdomuit.
C Augustus Caesar Vi l l i et C Norbanus
568 His conss Astures et Cantabri per Lucium Lanium 24
569 perdomiti.
C Augustus Caesar X et Cn Piso
570 M Marcellus et L Arruntius 23
571 M Lollius et Q Lepidus 22
572 M Apuleius et P Silius 21
573 His conss aquilas et signa Crassiana de Parthis Caesar 20
574 recepit.
C Sentius et Q Lucretius
575 His conss Caesari ex provintiis redeunti currus cum corona 19
576 aurea decretus est quo ascendere noluit.
Cn Lentulus et P Lentulus
577 T Furnius et C Silanus 18
578 L Domitius et P Scipio 17
579 M Drusus et L Piso 16
580 15
560 Cesar P 563 Cesar M provint iasP 564 Virgilius Aft Cusp. 565 Cesar M 566 Cesar M 567 Cantabos Ma 568 Cesar M No rban i sM 569 As to r e sM perdomiti] emend. Mommsen : perdomuit C Cusp. 570 Cesar P 571-572 om. M 571 Aruncius Cusp. 573 Apulleius M P Silius] P : P Sillius Cusp. : P Arruntius M 574 decepit M 577 om. M
63
581 Cn Lentulus et M Crassus 14
582 Ti Nero et P Quintilius 13
583 M Messala et P Sulpicius 12
584 P Fabius et Q Aelius 11
585 Iullus Antonius et Affricanus Fabius 10
586 Drusus Nero et L Quintius 9
587 His conss apud Lingonum gentem templum Caesari Drusus
sacravit.
588 C Asinius et C Martius 8
589 His conss inter Albim et Rhenum Germani omnes Tiberio
Neroni dediti.
590 Per Sextum Apuleium Pannonii subacti.
591 Ti Nero et Cn Piso 7
592 D Laelius et C Antistius 6
593 Augustus Caesar XI et L Sylla 5
594 C Calvisius et L Passienus 4
595 C Lentus et M Messula 3
596 His conss dominus noster Iesus Christus filius dei in
Bethleem nascitur anno imperii Augusti XLI.
597 C Augustus Caesar XII et M Plaucius 2
598 Cossus Lentulus et L Piso 1
599 C Augustus Caesar XIII et L Paulus 1
600 C Vinicius et P Alfenus 2
583-586 om. M 584 Paulus Fabius P Cusp., fortasse PAulus. Sed opinor librarium per columnas scribentem erravisse. 585 Iullo sanctionibus P : Iulius Antonius Cusp. 587 aputM CesariP 588 Martius] MCusp. : MarciusP 589TiberoP 591 om. M 592 Laelius] P Cusp. : Lelius M 595 om. M 596 Bethleem] P Cusp. : Bethlehem M 597 Plaucius] MCusp. : Plautius P 598-600 om. M
64
601 M Servilius et L Lamia 3
602 Sex Aelius et C Sentius 4
603 Cn Cinna et L Valerius 5
604 His conss per dies octo Tiberis impetu miseranda clades
hominum domorumque fuit.
605 M Lepidus et L Arruntius 6
606 Q Cecilius et ALinicius 7
607 M Furius et Sex Nonius 8
608 Q Sulpicius et C Poppaeus 9
609 P Dolabella et C Silanus 10
610 M Lepidus et T Statilius n
611 Ger Caesar et C Fonteius 12
612 L Plancus et C Silius 13
613 Sex Pompeius et Sex Apuleius 14
614 His conss imperator Augustus obiit septuagesimo sexto
anno aetatis suae, imperii autem quinquagesimo sexto
semis. Huic successit imperium Tiberius Caesar qui
imperavit annos XXIII. Sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
Ill
615 Drusus Cesar et C Norbanus 15
616 Sisenna Statilius et L Scribonius 16
617 His conss matematici urbe pelluntur.
618 L Pomponius et C Cecilius n
619 Ti Caesar et Germanicus Caesar 18
620 M Silanus et C Norbanus 19
621 His conss Germanicus Caesar in Suria mortuus est.
606 Cecilius] MCusp. : Caecilius P 607-608 om. M 610 Statilius] P Cusp. : Stadius M 611 om. M 614 septuagessmo M in om. M inper iumM Cesar M inperavit M hi] hie M 616 Scribonius] P Cusp. : Scribonus M 618 Cecilius] MCusp. : Caecilius P 619 Ti et Germanias Cesar M 621 Cesar M est om.P
65
622 M Valerius et M Aurelius 20
623 Ti Caesar et Drusus Caesar 21
624 D Haterius et C Sulpicius 22
625 C Asinius et C Antistius 23
626 His conss Drusus Caesar publice funeratur.
627 Ser Cornelius et L Visellius 24
628 M Asinius et Cossus Cornelius 25
629 C Calvisius et Cn Getulicus 26
630 L Piso et M Crassus 27
631 App Silanus et P Silius 28
632 C Rubellius et C Fufius 29
633 M Vinicius et L Cassius 30
634 Ti Caesar V conss 31
634a duo Gemini 29
635 His conss dominus noster Iesus Christus passus est VIII
kal. Aprilis et defectio solis facta est qualis ante vel
postmodum numquam fuit.
636 Vinicius et Longinus 30
637 Sulpicius et Sylla 33
638 Priscus et Vitellus 34
639 Gallus et Nonianus 35
640 His conss Persius Flaccus satyricus poeta Volaterris
nascitur.
641 Gallienus et Plautianus 36
623 Drusus Caesar] Caesar om. M 625 om. M 626 Cesar P puplice M 628-629 om. M 631-633 om. M 634a Neque habentmss neque Cuspinianus, sedego restitui. 637 Sylla] P Cusp. : Silla M 638 Vitellius Cusp., addens "ita in Cassiodori opusculo leguntur coss. " 639 om. M 640 satyricus] atyricus P : atyraus M: om. Cusp.
66
642 His conss Tiberius imperator in Campania moritur. Cui
successit C Caesar cognomento Caligula qui regnavit annis
tribus et mensibus XI. Sub quo hi consules extiterunt.
IIII
643 Proculus et Nicrinus 37
644 Iulianus et Asprenas 38
645 Publicula et Nerva -/-
646 His conss Pilatus in multas incidens calamitates propria se
manu interfecit.
647 Caesar et Iulianus 40/-
648 His conss C Caesar cognomento Caligula in protectoribus
suis occiditur in palatio anno aetatis XXIIII. Cui successit
Claudius qui imperavit annis XIII mensibus VIII diebus
XXVIII. Sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
V
649 Caesar II et Saturninus 41
650 Saturninus II et Venustus 41/-
651 His conss Petrus apostolus Romam mittitur ubi evangelium
praedicans XXV annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseverat.
652 Tiberius et Gallius 42
653 Crispinus et Taurus 44
654 His conss Claudius de Brittannis triumphavit et Orcadas
insulas Romano adiecit imperio.
655 Vinicius et Cornelius 45/-
656 His conss inter Theram et Therasiam exorta est insula
habens stadia XXX.
642 XI] MCusp. :XP III M 648 in protectoribus] PM a protectoribus Hier. Cusp. palacioM etatis M 649 Saturninus] P Cusp. : Saturnius M 651 PetusMa 653 ThaurusM 654 PrittannisM 655 VinciusMa 656 studiaP
67
657 Asiaticus et Cornelius 46/-
658 His conss descriptio Romae facta est et inventa sunt civium
Romanorum centena milia et XLIIII.
659 Trachia hucusque regnata in provinciam redigitur.
660 Tiberius II et Vitellus 47
661 Vitellius II et Publicola 48
662 Veranus et Gallus 49
663 Vetus et Nervilianus 50
664 Claudius et Orfitus 51
665 Silvanus et Silvius 52
666 Tiberius III et Antoninus 51/53
667 Silanus et Otho 53/52
668 His conss Claudius moritur in palatio anno aetatis LXIIII.
Huic successit Nero qui regnavit annis XIII mensibus VII
diebus XXVIII. Sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
VI
669 Silanus II et Antonius II 53
670 Marcellinus et Aviola 54
671 His conss sanctus Paulus apostolus Romam vinctus a
Felice preside destinatur.
672 Probus etiam eruditissimus grammaticus Romae
cognoscitur.
673 Ursulus Tolosensis celeberrime in Gallia rethoricam docet.
674 Nero et Vetus 55
675 Nero II et Piso 57
657 Victorius "Asiaticus et Silanus" habet. Itaque "Cornelius" in hoc loco fortasse scriptum est a quodam librario per dittographiam. 658 Rome M et XLIIII] et om. M 659 regnata] emend. Cusp, et Momm. : regnat P M provintiam P 660 om. M Vitellius Cusp. 661 Vitellius] MCusp. : Vitellus P 662-663 om. M 666 om. M Antonius Cusp, scribens "Sic in Cassiodori exemplo unico invent. " 668 palacio M etatis M 669 om. M 672 Rome M 612, retholicam P 675-678 om. M
68
676 Nero III et Messala 58
677 Nero IIII et Cornelius 60
678 Pius et Turpilianus -/6i
679 Macrinus et Gallus 62
680 Crassus et Bassus 64
681 His conss thermae a Nerone aedificatae quas Neronianas
appellavit. cuius odio, mutato vocabulo, nunc Alexandrinae
nominantur.
682 Silvanus et Paulinus 65/66
683 His conss Nero ut similitudinem Troiae ardentis inspiceret
plurimam partem Romanae urbis incendit.
684 Censinus et Apuleius -/-
685 His conss duae provinciae factae sunt Pontus
Polemoniacus et Alpes Cottiae Cottio rege defuncto.
686 Capita et Rufus 67
687 Italicus et Turpilianus 68
688 Silvanus et Otho 69
689 His conss Romae sanctus Petrus et Paulus apostolus
trucidati sunt a Nerone.
690 Qui turpiter vivens cum a senatu quaereretur ad poenam e
palatio fugiens ad IIII urbis miliarium in suburbano
Numentana via sese interfecit anno aetatis XXXII.
691 Cui successit Galba, qui regnavit mensibus VII.
692 Post hunc Otho mensibus tribus diebus quinque.
680 om. M 681 t h e r m e M edif icataeM ne ron iasM vobulo P alexandrinae] P Cusp. : alexandrianae M 685 provintiae M cottie M 687 om. M 689 apostolus] M Cusp. : apostoli P Nerore P 690 quereretur M penam M palacio M IIII] quattuor P : quatuor M: quartum Cusp. e t a t i sM 691 succens i tM 692 om. M
69
693 Post Vitellius regnavit mensibus VIII die uno. Qui omnes
infra scriptos duos consules tenuerunt.
694 Vespasianus et Titus 70
695 Vespasianus II et Titus II 73
696 His conss Vespasianus suscepit imperium qui regnavit
annis Villi mensibus XI diebus XXII. Sub quo hi consules
fuerunt.
VII
697 Vespasianus III et Nerva 71
698 Vespasianus MI et Titus III 74
699 His conss Titus filius Vespasiani Iudaea capta, praeter quos
gladio interfecit, C milia captivorum publice venundavit.
700 Vespasianus V et Titus MI 75
701 Vespasianus VI et Titus V 76
702 Vespasianus VII et Titus VI 77
703 His conss Vespasianus incensum Capitolium aedificare
orsus est.
704 Commodus et Rufus 78
705 Vespasianus VIII et Titus VII 79
706 His conss colossus erectus est habens altitudinis pedes
CVII.
707 Vespasianus VIM et Titus VIII 80
708 Silvanus et Verus 81
709 Domitianus et Messalianus 82/85
693 Vitellus Ma 695 om. M 698 Vespasianus MI om. M 699 Iudea M preter M 700-706 om. M 707 Titus VIM M
70
710 His conss Vespasianus est mortuus profluvio ventris in
villa propria circa Sabinos. cui Titus filius eius succedens
in utraque lingua dissertissimus regnavit annis duobus
mensibus duobus. sub quo hi consules exstiterunt.
VIII
711 Domitianus II et Rufus II 83
712 His conss Titus amphitheatrum Romae aedificavit et in
dedicatione eius V milia ferarum occidit.
713 Domitianus III et Sabinus 84
714 His conss Titus morbo periit in eadem villa qua pater eius
anno aetatis XLII. qui ob insignem mansuetudinem
deliciae humani generis appellatus est. cui successit
Domitianus frater Titi iunior crudelissimus. qui imperavit
annis XV mensibus V. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
Villi
715 Domitianus 1111 et Rufus III 85/-
716 His conss Domitianus eunuchos fieri prohibuit.
717 Domitianus V et Dolabella 86
718 Domitianus VI et Rufus IIII 88
719 Flavius et Traianus 89
720 Domitianus VII et Nerva 90
721 Traianus II et Gabrio 91
722 His conss primus Domitianus dominum et deum se
appellari iussit.
723 Domitianus VIII et Saturninus
710 dissertissimus sic P M ext i teruntM 712 edificavitM 713 Domitianus] M Cusp. : Domitianus P 714 insignem] Cusp emend, signem P M delicias P M, emend. Cusp, etMommsen succensi tM cludelissimusP coniesMa 717 V I M 718 om.M 720-721 om.M 722 appellare P Cusp : apellare M 723 om. M
71
724 Silvanus et Priscus 92/93
725 His conss Quintillianus ex Hispania primus Romae
scholam publicam et salarium e fisco accepit et claruit.
726 Asprenas et Clemens 94/95
727 His conss multa moenia et celeberrima Romae facta sunt.
Id est Capitolium, forum transitorium, divorum porticus,
Iseum, Serapium, stadium, horrea piperataria, Vespasiani
templum, Minerva Chalcedica, odion.
728 Domitianus Vi l l i et Clemens II 95
729 His conss insignissima Romae facta sunt, id est forum
Traiani, thermae Traianae et Titianae, senatus, ludus
matutinus, mica aurea, meta sudans et pantheus.
730 Nerva II et Rufus 97
731 Fulvius et Vetus -96
732 Sabinus et Antoninus -/-
733 Nerva III et Traianus III 98
734 Senecio et Palma 99
735 Traianus IIII et Fronto 100
736 His conss Apollonius Tyaneus philosophus insignis
habetur.
737 Domitianus occisus in palatio anno aetatis XXXV. cui
Nerva succedens regnat annum I mensibus IIII. sub quo hi
consules fuerunt.
X
738 Traianus V et Orfitus 101/110
725 s c o l a m M 727 factae P : facte M Serapium] MCusp : Saerapium P Calcedica Pa 728 Domitianus IIII M 729 facte M 730-731 om. M 733 om. M 735 om. M 736 Apollonius] P Cusp. : Appollonius M Tyaneus om. M 111 palacio M anno bis Pa e t a t i sM X X X I I I I M succensitM2 annum P M Cusp. 738 I I M
72
739 Senecio II et Sura -7102
740 His conss Nerva morbo periit in hortis Sallustianis anno
aetatis LXXII, cum iam Traianum adoptasset in filium. cui
succedens imperavit annis XVIIII mensibus VI diebus XV.
sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
XI
741 Traianus VI et Maximus 103
742 Senecio III et Sura II -/-
743 Urbanus et Marcellus 104
744 Candidus et Quadratus 105
745 His conss Traianus de Dacis et Scythis triumphavit.
746 Commodus et Caerealis 106
747 His conss Traianus Hiberos Sauromatas Hosroenos Arabas
Bosphoranus Colchos in foedus accepit. Seleuciam
Etesifontem Babylonem occupavit et tenuit.
748 Senecio IIII et Sura III 107
749 His conss Traianus in mari rubro classem instituit ut per
earn Indiae fines vastaret.
750 Gallus et Bradua 108
751 Africanus et Crispinus -/-
752 Crispinus II et Solenus 110/-
753 Piso et Rusticus 111
754 Traianus VII et Affricanus 112
755 Celsus et Crispinus 113
739 Senecio] P Cusp. : Senetio M Traianus M1 in paginae margine 740 e t a t i sM Cum iam...XI om. M 741 -742 om. M 744 Quadatus M° 747 faedus P Seuleuciam M etesifontem P M: etsesifontem Ma 751-752 om. M 752 Bolenus Cusp. 754-755 om. M
73
756 His conss Plinius Secundus Novocomensis orator et
historicus insignis habetur. cuius ingenii plurima opera
extant.
757 AstaetPiso 114/-
758 Messala et Pedon 115
759 Aemilius et Verus 116
760 Niger et Apronianus in
761 His conss Traianus Armeniam Assyriam et Mesopotamiam
provintias fecit.
762 Clarus et Alexander -/-
763 Hadrianus et Salinator 118
764 Hadrianus II et Rusticus 119
765 Servilius et Fulvius 120
766 His conss Traianus apud Seleuciam Hisauriae profluvio
ventris extinctus est anno aetatis LXIII. cuius ossa in urna
aurea conlocata sub columna fori quod eius nomine
vocitatur recondita sunt, cuius columnae altitudo in CXL
pedes erigitur. huic successit Hadrianus utraque lingua
peritissimus, Italicae natus ex consobrina Traiani, qui
regnavit annis XX mensibus X diebus XXVIIII. sub quo hi
consules fuerunt.
XII
767 Verus et Augur 121
768 His conss Hadrianus Alexandriam a Romanis subversam
publicis instauravit expensis.
769 Aviola et Pansa 122
756 Plenius P Ma 757 om. M 759 om. M Aemilius] P : Aemilianus Cusp. 760 Apronianus] MCusp. : Aproniamus P 761 Assyr r iamM 763-764 om. M 766 aput M Seleutiam M etatis M L X I I M collocata M calumna P M diebus XXVIIII] om. M 768-769 om. M
74
770 His conss Hadrianus reliqua tributorum urbibus relaxavit,
chartis publicis incensis. plurimos etiam ipsis tributis
liberos fecit.
771 Paternus et Torquatus 123/124
772 His conss Plutarchus philosophus insignis habetur.
773 Gabrio et Apronianus 124/123
774 His conss Nicomedia et Nicenae urbis plurimis terrae motu
conlapsis Hadrianus ad instaurationem earum publicas
largitur expensas.
775 Asiaticus et Quintus 125/-
776 Verus et Ambiguus 126
777 His conss Atheniensibus leges petentibus Hadrianus ex
Draconis et Solonis reliquorumque libris iura composuit.
778 Gallicanus et Titianus 127
779 His conss iuxta Eleusinam civitatem Cefiso fluvio
Hadrianus pontem constravit.
780 Torquatus et Libo 128
781 Celsus et Marcellinus 129
782 Pontianus et Rufus 131
783 Augurinus et Sergianus 132
784 Tiberius et Silanus 133/—
785 His conss Hadrianus a Christianorum persecutione
cessavit,
786 et pater patriae est appellatus.
787 Sergius II et Verus 134
788 Pompeianus et Atilianus 135
770 adrianus M 112-113 om. M 113 Apronianus] M Cusp. : Aproniamus P 11A N i c e t a e M 776 om. M 111 r e l iquarumM 781-783 om. M 786 apellatus M 787 om. M Sergianus Cusp.
75
789 His conss templum Romae et Veneris factum est quod nunc
urbis appellatur.
790 Pompeianus II et Commodus 136
791 His conss Hadrianus, cum insignes et plurimas aedes
Athenis fecisset, agonem edidit bibliothecamque miri
792 operis exstruxit.
793 Laelius et Albinus 137
794 Camerinus et Niger 138
795 Antoninus et Praesens 139
796 Antoninus II et Praesens II 140/139
797 Severus et Silvanus 141/-
His conss Aelia civitas id est Hierusalem ab Aelio
Hadriano condita est. et in fronte eius portae qua Bethleem
egredimur sus scaltus in marmore significans Romanae
798 potestati subiacere Iudaeos.
799 Rufinus et Torquatus 142/143
His conss Hadrianus morbo intercutis aquae apud Baias
moritur maior sexagenario. cui successit Antoninus Pius
qui regnavit annis XXI. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
800 XIII
801 Torquatus II et Herodes 143
802 Aviola et Maximus 144
803 Antoninus III et Aurelius 140
804 Gratus et Seleucus 221
His conss Iustinus philosophus librum pro Christiano
religione scriptum tradidit Antonino.
788 Pompeius et atilianis M 789 apellatur M 792-795 om. M Laelius] P : Sergianus Cusp., sedquare mutaverit non liquet. 797 Bethleem] P Cusp. : Bethelem M sus scaltus] P : sclatus (om. sus) M potestatis P Iudeos M 799 aput M succensit M 802-803 om. M
76
805 Antoninus IIII et Aurelius II 145
806 Largus et Messalianus 147
807 Torquatus III et Iulianus 148
808 Orfitus et Priscus 149
809 Gabrio et Vetus -/150
8io Gordianus et Maximus 151
811 Gabrio II et Romulus 152
812 Praesens et Rufus 153
813 Commodus et Lateranus 154
814 His conss Apollonius stoicus natione Chalcedicus et
Basilides Scytopolitanus philosophi inlustres habentur qui
Caesaris quoque praeceptores fuerunt.
815 Verus et Sabinus 155
816 Silvanus et Augurinus 156
817 Barbarus et Regulus 157
818 Tertullus et Sacerdos 158
819 Quintillus et Priscus 159
820 Verus II et Bradua 160
821 Antoninus V et Aurelius III 161
822 pc Antonini V et Aureli III
823 Hoc tempore Antoninus Pius apud Lorium villam suam
duodecimo ab urbe miliario moritur anno vitae LXXVII.
Usque ad hoc tempus singuli Augusti fuerunt. cui
successerunt filii sui, id est Marcus Antoninus Verus et
805 IIII] MCusp. : H I P AuliusM* 807-812 om. M 814 n a c i o n e M Basilides] M Cusp. : Basylides P Scytopolitanus] P : om. M : Syropolitanus Cusp cesaris M quoque] M Cusp. : om. P 817 Barbatus Cusp. 818-821 om. M 822 pc Antonini VI et Aureli IIII P 823 aput M duodec imaM LXXVII] P Cusp. : LXXIII M fili M
77
Lucius Annius Antoninus Severus, qui regnaverunt annis
XVIIII. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.
XIIH
824 duo Augusti conss 161
825 Rusticus et Aquilinus 162
826 His conss Lucio Caesari Athenis sacrificanti ignis in caelo
ab occidente in orientem ferri visus est.
827 Laelianus et Pastor 163
828 Macrinus et Celsus 164
829 His conss Fronto orator insignis habetur qui Marcum
Antoninum Latinis litteris erudivit.
830 Orfitus et Pudens 165
831 His conss Lucius Caesar de Parthis cum fratre Antonino
triumphavit.
832 Pudens II et Pollio 166
833 Verus III et Quadratus 167
834 Apronianus et Paulus 168
835 Priscus etApollinaris 169
836 Cethecus et Clarus no
837 Severus et Herennianus 171
838 His conss Lucius Annius Antoninus Severus anno regni
undecimo inter Concordiam et Altinum apoplexi extinctus
est sedens cum fratre in vehiculo.
839 Orfitus et Maximus 172
840 Severus II et Pompeianus 173
XVIIII] P Cusp. : X V I I M XIIII om. M 826 ferri] Cusp. : terri P : om. M Laelianus] P Cusp. : Lelianus M 829 Latinis] P Cusp. : insignis M Uteris M 831 Cesar M 833-836 om. M 836 Cethegus Cusp. 839 Annius] M Cusp. : Annus P 839-840 om. M
78
841 Gallus et Flaccus 174
842 Piso et Iulianus 175
843 Poll ioetAper 176
844 Commodus et Quintillus 177
845 His conss Marcus Antoninus Verus imperator Commodum
filium suum consortem regni facit.
846 Orfitus et Rufus 178
847 His conss imperatores de hostibus triumphant,
848 et pecuniam quae fisco debebatur provinciis concedentes
tabulas debitorum in medio Romanae urbis foro incendio
concremarunt. Ac nequid bonitatis deesset severiores
quasque leges novis constitutionibus temperarunt.
849 Commodus II et Verus II 179
850 His conss Antoninus Verus adeo in editione munerum
magnificus fuit ut centum simul leones exhibuerit.
851 Qui post in Pannonia morbo periit. Commodus filius eius a
senatu Augustus est appellatus, qui regnavit annis XIII. sub
quo hi consules fuerunt.
XV
852 Praesens et Gordianus 180
853 Commodus III et Byrrus 181
854 Mamertinus et Rufus 182
855 Commodus IIII et Victorinus 183
856 Marullus et Haelianus 184
857 His conss thermae Commodianae Romae factae sunt.
843-844 om.M 848 p rov in t i i sM 850 e d i c i o n e M 851 annis] Cusp. : an. P : anno M fuerunt] om. M 852 Presens et Cordianus M: Praesens II et Gordianus Cusp. 853 om.M 855 om.M 856 Marullus] P Cusp. : Marcillus M 857 therme Commodiane Rome M
79
858 Maternus et Bradua 185
859 Commodus V et Gabrio 186
860 Crispinus et Haelianus 187
861 Fuscianus et Silanus 188
862 duo Silani 189
863 His conss Commodus imperator colossi capite sublato suae
imaginis caput iussit inponi.
864 Commodus VI et Septimianus 190
865 Apronianus et Bradua 191
866 Commodus VII et Pertinax 192
867 His conss Commodus strangulatur in domo Vestiliani. cui
successit Pertinax, qui regnavit mensibus VI.
XVI
868 Falco et Clarus 193
869 His conss Pertinax occiditur in palatio maior
septuagenario. cui successit Severus provintia Tripolitana
natus oppido Lepti, solusque Afer imperator Romanus fuit,
qui regnavit annis XVIII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
XVII
870 Severus et Albinus 194
871 Tertullus et Clemens 195
872 Dexter et Priscus 196
873 Lateranus et Rufinus 197
874 Scoturninus et Gallus 198
875 Anulinus et Fronto 199
859-560 om. M Glabrio Cusp. 860 Aelianus Cusp. 862 Duo et Silani PMsed opinor librarium per columnas scribentem erravisse. 863 s u e M 864 om. M 865 Apronianus] P Cusp. : Ambronianus M Bradua II Cusp. 866 VII] P Cusp. : om. M 867 Pertinax Pa M : Helvius Pertinax Ph : Aelius Pertinax Cusp. 869 aper M 871 om. M 873-874 om. M Ruffinus Cusp. 874 Saturninus Cusp.
80
876 His conss Severus Parthos et Adiabenos superavit,
Arabasque interiores ita cecidit ut regionem eorum
Romanam provintiam faceret.
877 Severus II et Victorinus 200
878 Fabianus et Mutianus 201
879 His conss thermae Severianae apud Antiochiam et Romae
factae, et septezodium instructum est.
880 Severus III et Antoninus 202
881 Geta et Plautianus 203
882 Chilo et Libo 204
883 Antoninus II et Geta II 205
884 Albinus et Aelianus 206
885 Aper et Maximus 207
886 His conss Severus in Brittannos bellum movit, ubi, ut
receptas provincias ab incursione barbarica faceret
securiores vallum per CXXXII passuum milia a mari ad
mare duxit.
887 Antoninus III et Geta III 208
888 Pompeianus et Avitus 209
889 His conss Tertullianus Afer Christianorum scriptor
celeberrimus habetur.
890 Faustinus et Rufus 210
891 His conss Origenis scriptor Alexandriae studiis eruditur.
892 Gentianus et Bassus 211
876 R o m a m M 878 Mutianus] M Cusp. : Mucianus P 879 therne Severiane M a p u t M Anthiochiam P R o m e M facte M 881 om. M 883 om. M Geta II] P ; om. II Cusp. 884 Haelianus P a 886 provintias P 887 om. M 890 om. M Rufus] Cusp, scribit exemplar Cassiodori Faustinus et Ruffus habere.
81
893 His conss Severus imperator Eboraci in Brittannia moritur.
cui successit Antoninus Caracalla Severi filius, qui
regnavit annis VII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
XVIII
894 Duo Aspri 212
895 Antoninus et Balbinus 213
896 Messala et Sabinus 214
897 His conss Antoninus Caracalla cognominatur propter genus
vestis quod Romae erogaverat.
898 Laetus et Caerealis 215
899 Sabinus II et Venustus 216/-
900 His conss Antoninus Romae thermas sui nominis
aedificavit.
901 Praesens et Extricatus 217
902 Antoninus et Adventus 218
903 His conss Antoninus interficitur inter Edessam et Carras
anno aetatis XLIII. cui successit Macrinus praefecturam
praetorianam gerens. regnavit autem anno I. sub quo hi
consules fuerunt.
XVIIII
904 Antoninus II et Sacerdos 219
905 His conss Macrinus occiditur in Archelaidae. cui successit
M Aurelius Antoninus, qui regnavit annis M I . sub quo hi
consules fuerunt.
XX
906 Antoninus III et Comazon 220
893 Brittania P 894 Duo et Aspri P : Duo et Aspiri M sed opinor librarium per columnas scribentem erravisse. : Aspari Cusp. 895 om. M Antoninus M I Cusp. 897-902 om. M 898 Cerealis Cusp. 903 praetoriam M 905 Marinus P M
82
907 Gratus et Seleucus 221
908 His coss Haeliogabalum templum Romae aedificatur.
909 Alexander et Augustus 222
910 His conss in Palestina Nicopolis quae prius Emmaus
vocabatur urbs condita est.
911 Maximus et Helianus 223
912 His conss M Aurelius Antoninus Romae occiditur tumultu
militari. cui successit Alexander Mamae filius, qui regnavit
annis XIII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
XXI
913 Iulianus et Crispinus 224
914 His conss Alexander Xerxem regem Persarum vicit.
915 Fuscus et Dexter 225
916 Alexander II et Marcellus 226
917 Annianus et Maximus -/227
918 His conss Ulpianus iuris consultus adsessor Alexandri
insignissimus habetur.
919 Albinus et Maximus 227
920 His conss Neronianae thermae Alexandrianae vocatae sunt.
921 Modestus et Probus 228
922 Alexander III et Dio 229
923 Gratus et Seleucus 221
924 His conss Origenis Alexandriae clarus habetur.
925 Pompeianus et Felicianus 231
926 Lupus et Maximus 232
907 Seleucius P a 910 pius M 912 Antoninus] P Cusp. : A n t o n i u s M quo om. Ma
916 om. M 918 adsesser Alexander M 920 thermae Alexandrianae om. P 922 om. M 923 Seleucus] P Cusp. : Seleucius M 925 om. M
927 His conss Alexander in matrem Mammeam unice pius fuit
et ob hoc cunctis amabilis.
928 Maximus et Paternus 233
929 Maximus II et Urbanus 234
930 Severus et Quintianus 235
931 His conss Alexander occiditur Magontiaci tumultu militari.
Cui successit Maximinus regnans annis tribus, primus ex
corpore militari imperator electus. sub quo hi consules
fuerunt.
XXII
932 Maximinus et Affricanus
933 Perpetuus et Cornelianus 236
934 Pius et Proculus 237
935 His conss Maximinus Aquileiae occiditur. cui successit 238
Gordianus, qui regnavit annis VI. sub quo hi consules
fuerunt.
XXIII
936 Gordianus et Aviola 239
937 Sabinus et Venustus 240
938 His conss Gordiano Romae ingresso Pupienus et Albinus,
qui imperium arripuerant in palatio occisi sunt.
939 Gordianus II et Pompeianus 241
940 Atticus et Praetextatus 242
941 Arrianus et Pappus 243
942 Peregrinus et Aemilianus 244
927-930 om. M et om. Cusp. 930 Quintilianus Cusp. 932 om. M 935 Maximinus] Cusp. : Maximus M: om. P 937 om. M 939-940 om. M 942 om.
84
943 His conss Gordianus admodum adulescens Parthorum
natione superata, cum victor reverteretur ad patriam, fraude
Philippi ppo haud longe a Romano solo intefectus est.
Gordiano milites tumulum aedificant supra Eufraten,
ossibus eius Roman revectis. cui successit Philippus, qui
regnavit annis VII. qui mox Philippum filium suum
consortem regni facit, primusque omnium ex Romanis
imperatoribus Christianus fuit. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
XXIIII
944 Philippus et Titianus 245
945 Praesens et Albinus 246
946 Philippus II et Philippus 247
947 Philippus III et Philippus II 248
948 Aemilianus et Aquilinus 249
949 His conss millesimus annus urbis romae expletus est. ob
quam sollemnitatem innumerabiles Philippus cum filio suo
bestias in circo magno interfecit. Ludosque in campo
Martio theatrales tribus diebus ac noctibus populo
pervigilante celebravit. Quadraginta etiam missus natali
romanae urbis cucurrerunt. et agon mille annorum
actus.
950 Philippus urbem nominis sui in Trachia construxit.
951 Decius et Grates 250
952 Decius II et Rusticus 251
943 nacione M ppro P tumultum P" edificant M refectis M VII] septem Cusp. : VI P : XVII M primum qui P 945-947 om. M 949 in circo] P : icirco M Marcio M missus] emend. Cusp. : missos P M 952 Decius II om. M
85
953 His conss Philippus senior Veronae, Romae vero iunior,
occiditur. His successit Decius qui regnavit anno I
mensibus tribus. quantum ad consules autem annum I. sub
quo hi consules fuerunt.
XXV
954 Gallus et Volusianus 252
955 His conss Decius lavacra publica aedificavit, quae suo
nomine appellari iussit. Decius cum filio suo in Abritio
956 Traciae loco a Gothis occiditur. cui successit Gallus cum
Volusiano filio, qui regnaverunt annis II et mensibus IIII.
quantum ad consulatum autem annis tantum duobus. sub
quibus hi consules fuerunt.
XXVI
957 Volusianus II et Maximus 253
958 His conss Novatianus apparuit.
959 Valerianus et Gallienus 254
960 His conss Gallus et Volusianus Teramnae interfecti sunt,
quibussuccesserunt Valerianus et Gallienus, qui
regnaverunt annis XV. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.
XXVII
961 Valerianus II et Gallienus II 255
962 Maximus II et Gabrio 256
963 Valerianus III et Gallienus III 257
964 His conss Cyprianus primum rethor deinde presbyter ad
extremum Carthaginiensis episcopus martyrio coronatur.
965 Tuscus et Bassus 258
953 succes i tM XXV om. P 954 Gallus] MCusp. : Callus P 955 p u p l i c a M edificavitM queM 956TracieP locaM consolatum PM quibus] P : quo M 957-958 om. M 960 Terrammae M: Interamnae Cusp. XV] P Cusp. : VIM 961 om. M 962 llom.M 963 om. M 964 Cyprianus] P Cusp. :CiprianusM Cartharginiensis M 965-970 om. M
86
966 His consulibus Valerianus, in Christianos persecutione
commota, statim a Sapore Persarum rege capitur ibique
servitute miserabili consenescit.
967 Aemilianus et Bassus 259
968 Secularis et Donatus 260
969 Gallienus IIII et Gentianus 261/-
970 Gallienus V et Victorinus 262/-
971 Albinus et Maximus 263
972 His conss Graecia Macedonia Pontus Asia depopulata per
Gothos aliasque provintias barbarorum quassavit inruptio.
973 Gallienus VI et Saturninus 264
974 Valerius et Lucillus 265
975 Gallienus VII et Sabinillus 266
976 Paternus et Archisilaus 267
977 Paternus II et Marinus 268
978 Claudius et Paternus 269
979 Hie conss Gallienus Mediolano occiditur. cui successit
Claudius, qui regnavit annum I mensibus Vil l i , sub quo hi
consules fuerunt.
XXVIII
980 Antiochianus et Orphitus 270
981 Valerianus et Bassus 271
982 His conss Claudius barbaros vastantes repellit
983 et Sirmi moritur. huic successit Quintillus Claudii frater a
senatu Augustus appellatus, qui XVII imperii sui die
Aquileiae occiditur.
972 Grecia M barbarorumque quassavit M 973 VI om. M 914-911 om. M 976 Archesilanus Cusp. 979 Mediolanio P 980 om. M 983 Cladii M
87
984 post quern Aurelianus factus est imperator, qui regnavit
annis V mensibus VI. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
XXVIIII
985 Quietus et Voldumianus 272
986 Tacitus et Placidianus 273
987 Aurelianus et Capitolinus 274
988 His conss Aurelianum Romae triumphantem captivi
Tetricus et Zenobia praecesserunt.
989 Aurelianus II et Marcellus 275
990 His conss Aurelianus templum soli aedificavit. Romam
firmioribus muris vallat.
991 Probus et Paulinus 277
992 Probus II et Paternus II 278/279
993 His conss inter Constantinopolim et Heracliam Aurelianus
occiditur. cui successit Tacitus qui regnavit mensibus VI.
sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
XXX
994 Probus III et Paternus 279/278
995 His conss Tacitus in Ponto occisus est et optinuit Florianus
imperium diebus LXXXVIII.
996 Hoc quoque apud Tarsim interfecto Probus factus est
imperator, qui regnavit annis VI mensibus III. sub quo hi
consules fuerunt.
XXXI
997 Messala et Gratus 280
986-988 om. M 989 Aurelianus II] P : Aurelius {om. II) M: Aurelianus I Cusp. 992 om. M 993 Aurelianus] P Cusp. : Aurelius M 994 III] P Cusp. : II] M Paternus] M Cusp. : Paternus III P 995 LXXXVIII] P : LXXVIIIM: octoginanovem Cusp. 996 aputM
88
998 His conss Galliae quae fuerant a barbaris occupatae a
999 Probo Romano restituuntur imperio.
IOOO Probus IIII et Tiberianus 281
IOOI Probus V et Victorinus 282
1002 His conss insana Manicheorum haeresis exorta est.
1003 Cams et Carinus 283
1004 Carus II et Numerianus 284
1005 Diocletianus et Aristobolus 285
His conss Probus apud Sirmium tumultu militari in turre
quae vocatur ferrata occiditur. Cui successit Carus cum
filiis suis Carino et Numeriano, qui regnaverunt annis
duobus. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.
1006 XXXII
1007 Maximus et Aquilinus 286
His conss cum Carus devictis Parthis castra supra Tigridem
1008 posuisset fulmine ictus interiit.
1009 Diocletianus II et Maximianus 287
His conss Numerianus occiditur. Carinus apud Margum
proelio victus interiit. Post quos Diocletianus Dalmata
suscepit imperium, qui regnavit annis XX. sub quo hi
consules fuerunt.
XXXIII
IOIO Maximianus II et Ianuarius 288
ion Bassus et Quintianus 289
1012 His conss Diocletianus in consortium regni Herculium
Maximianum adsumit.
998 Galliae] P Cusp. : Gratus M 999 om. M 1001 haeresis] P Cusp. : heresis M 1003 Carus II et] P : om. M: Carinus II Cusp. 1004 Diocletianus om. M 1005 aput M 1007 Tr ig idemM 1008 Dioclitianus M 1009 a p u t M Dioclitianus M 1012 Dioclitianus M
89
ion Diocletianus III et Maximianus III 290
1014 Tiberianus et Dio 291
1015 Annibalianus et Asclepiodotus 292
1016 Diocletianus IIII et Maximianus IIII 293
ion Constantius et Maximus 294
1018 Tuscus et Anulinus 295
1019 Diocletianus V et Constantius II 296
1020 Maximianus V et Maximus II 297
1021 Faustus et Gallus 298
1022 His conss primus Diocletianus adorari se iussit ut deum et
gemmas vestibus calciamentisque conseruit, cum ante eum
omnes imperatores in modum iudicum salutarentur et
clamydem tantum purpuream a privato habitu plus
haberent.
1023 Dioclecianus VI et Maximinus VI 299
1024 Constantius III et Maximus III 300
1025 Titianus et Nepotianus 301
1026 Constantius IIII et Maximus IIII 302
1027 His conss LX milia Alamannorum caesa sunt.
1028 Diocletianus VII et Maximianus VII 303
1029 Diocletianus VIII et Maximianus VIII 304
1030 Constantius V et Maximus V 305
1031 Constantius VI et Maximus VI 306
1013 om. M Dioclecianus P 1015-1019 om. M 1015 Anniballianus Cusp. 1016 Dioclecianus P 1020 om.MetP. Cusp, habet, sed opinor ex fastis Vindobonesibus prioribus, quos in hoc loco, p. 482, citavit. Mommsen tamen recte restituit. Vide p. . 1022 Dioclitianus M clamydem tantum purpuream] Cusp, tantum clamydem purpureum P clamidem tantum purpoream M habito P 1023 om. M Maximianus Cusp. 1026 om. M 1028 Dicletianus Pa Maximianus VII] Maximinus P : om. VII M 1029 om. M Dioclecianus P 1031 om. M
90
1032 His conss Diocletianus et Maximianus Augusti insigni
pompa Romae triumphaverunt ante cedentibus currum
eorum Narsei coniuge sororibus liberis et omni pompa qua
Parthos expoliaverant.
1033 Diocletianus Vi l l i et Constantinus -/307
1034 Diocletianus X et Maximus VII 308
1035 His conss Diocletianus Nicomediae Maximianus
Mediolani purpuram deposuerunt ob aetatis defectum et
creati sunt Constantius et Galerius. sed Constantius tantum
Augusti dignitate contentus cum esset otiosus, anni ipsius
adscribuntur filio eius Constantino qui natus dicitur ex
Helena concubina, qui regnavit annis XXX mensibus X.
sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
XXXIIII
1036 pc Diocletiani X et Maximi VII 309
1037 II pc Diocletiani X et Maximi VII 310
1038 Maximus VIII et Licinius 311/310
1039 Constantinus II et Licinius II 312
1040 Constantinus III et Licinius III 313
1041 Volusianus et Annianus 314
1042 Constantinus IIII et Licinius IIII 315
1043 Sabinus et Rufinus 316
1044 Gallicanus et Bassus 317
1045 Licinius V et Crispus 318
1046 Constantinus V et Licinius caes 319
1032 expoliaverant] Cusp. Mb : expoliaverantur P : expoliaverunt Ma
1034 Dioclecianus P Diocletianus X om. M 1035 Dioclecianus P e f fectumM 1036 Diocletiani P VII om. M 1037 h p c M Diocletiani P Maximi X P 1038-1042 om. M 1040 Licinius III] Cusp. : Licinius (om. Ill) P 1043 Rufinus] P : Rufus M: Ruffinus Cusp. 1044-1048 om. M Gallienus Cusp.
91
1047 Constantinus VI et Constantius caes 320
1048 Crispus II et Constantius caes II 321
1049 Probianus et Iulianus 322
1050 Severus et Rufinus 323
1051 Crispus III et Constantius III 324
1052 Paulinus et Iulianus 325
1053 Constantinus VII et Constantius III 326
1054 Constantius V et Maximus 327
1055 Ianuarius et Iustus 328
1056 His conss vicennalia Constantini Nicomediae acta et
sequenti anno Romae edita.
1057 Constantinus VIII et Constantius VI 329
1058 Constantius VII et Symmachus ?/330
1059 Bassus et Ablabius 331
1060 Pacatianus et Hilarianus 332
1061 His conss civitas quae prius Bizantium dicta est mutato
nomine a Constantino Constantinopolis dedicatur.
1062 Dalmatius et Zenophilus 333
1063 Optatus et Paulinus 334
1064 Constantius et Albinus 335
1065 Nepotianus et Facundus 336
1066 Felicianus et Titianus 337
1047 Constantius caes] P : Constantinus caes Cusp. 1048 Constantius caes II] P : Constantinus caes II Cusp. 1050-1051 om. M 1050 Ruffinus Cusp. 1051 Constantius caes III] P : Constantinus caes III Cusp. 1052 Iulianus] P Cusp. : Constantius M, vide 1053, infra. 1053-1054 om. M 1053 et Constantius III] P : et Constantius caes Cusp. 1054 Constantius V] Contantius V P : Constantius (om. V) Cusp. 1055 Ianuarius] MCusp. : Ianuarinus P 1056 aed i t aP 1057-1061 om. M Contantinus VIII P Constantius VI] P Constantinus IIII Cusp. 1066 Felicianus] P Cusp. : Felicius M
92
1067 Ursus et Polemius 338
1068 Constantius II et Constans 339
1069 His conss Constantinus imperator dum bellum pararet in
Persas in Acyrone villa publica iuxta Nicomediam moritur
anno aetatis LXVI. post quern tres liberi eius, id est
Constantinus Constantius et Constans, qui regnaverunt
annis XXIIII mensibus V diebus XXIII. sub quibus hi
consules fuerunt.
XXXV
1070 Acyndinus et Proculus 340
1071 Marcellinus et Probinus 341
1072 Constantius III et Constans II 342
1073 His conss Constantinus bellum fratri Constantio inferens
iuxta Aquileiam Alsae occiditur.
1074 Placidus et Romulus 343
1075 Leontius et Salustius 344
1076 His conss Franci a Constante perdomiti in pacem recepti
sunt.
1077 Constantius HII et Constans III 346
1078 Amantius et Albinus 345
1079 pc Amantii et Albini 346
1080 Rufinus et Eusebius 347
1081 His conss magnis rei publicae expensis in Seleucia Syriae
portus efficitur.
1082 Philippus et Sallia 348
1083 His conss solis facta defectio.
1068 Constantius II om. M 1069 pellum M Acyrone] P : Acyne M: Acirone Cusp i u s t a M anno aetatis LXVI] P Cusp. : annis L X V I I M 1072 om. M 1075 Leontius] MCusp. : Leoneius f 1076 reptisuntM 1077 om. M 1081 publiceM Syrie M 1083 om.M
93
1084 Limenius et Catulinus 349
1085 Sergius et Nigridianus 350
1086 His conss Constans haud longe ab Hispania in castro cui
Helenae nomen est interficitur anno aetatis XXX et
Constantius remansit in regno.
1087 pc Sergii et Nigridiani 351
1088 Constantius V et Constans caes 352
1089 Constantius VI et Constans caes II 353
1090 Constantius VII et Constans caes III 354
1091 Arbitrio et Lollianus 355
1092 His conss Victorinus rethor et Donatus grammaticus
Romae insignes habentur.
1093 Constantius VIII et Iulianus caes 356
1094 Constantius Vi l l i et Iulianus caes II 357
1095 His conss magnae Alamannorum copiae apud
Argentoratum oppidum Galliarum deletae sunt.
1096 Titianus et Caerealis 358
1097 Eusebius et Hypatius 359
1098 Constantius X et Iulianus caes HI 360
1099 His conss Honoratus nomine primus Constantinopoli
praefectus urbi esse coepit.
noo Taurus et Florentius 361
noi Mamertinus et Nevitta 362
1085 Nigridianus] P Cusp. : Nigridiannus M 1086 Hispann iaM e ta t i sM 1087 Nigriniani M : Nigrianus Cusp. 1088 ConstntiusM* V om. M 1089-1090 om. M 1089 Constans caes II] P : Constantius caes II Cusp. 1090 Constans caes III] P : Constantius III Cusp. 1093 VIII om. M 1094 om. M 1095 a p u t M de lec teM 1097 Hypatius] P Cusp. : H i p a t i u s M 1098 Constatius P a III om. M 1099 prim Ma : primo hft
94
1102 His conss Constantius Mopsocrenis inter Cil iciam
Cappadociamque moritur anno aetatis XLVI. cui successit
Iulianus, qui regnavit annum I. sub quo hi consules
fuerunt.
1103 X X X V I 363
1104 Iulianus IIII et Salustius
His conss Iulianus per victoriam apud Persas occiditur
anno aetatis XXXII . Post quern sequenti die Iovianus ex
primicerio domest icorum factus est imperator, qui regnavit
mens ibus VIII sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
1105 X X X V I I 364
1106 Iovianus et Varronianus
His conss Iovianus imperator mori tur anno aetatis
XXXIII I . Post quern Valentinianus tr ibunus scutariorum
apud Nicaeam Augustus appellatus, fratrem Valentem
Constantinopoli in communionem adsumit imperii , qui
regnavit annis XIIII mens ibus V. sub quo hi consules
fuerunt.
1107 X X X V I I I 365
1108 Valentinianus et Valens 366
1109 Grat ianus et Gadalaifus 367
m o Lubicinus et Iovinus
His conss Gratianus Valentiniani filius Ambianis imperator
m i factus est.
1112 Apud Atrabatas lana caelo pluviae mixta defluxit. 368
Valentinianus II et Valens II
1102 Cilitiam P etatis P XLVI] P M: 43 Cusp, annum] P : annis M: anno Cusp. 1103 Salustius] M Cusp. : Sallustius P 1104 aput M XXXII] P Cusp. : XXXIII M 1105 Varronianus] P Cusp. : Varonianus M 1106 XXXIIII] P M: tricesimotertio Cusp. scrutariorum P aputM NiceamM apellatusM fratemM" communioM 1107 Valentinianus] P Cusp. : Valentinus M 1111 aput M
95
1113 Valentinianus np et Victor 369
1114 Valentinianus III et Valens III 370
1115 Gratianus II et Probus 371
1116 Modestus et Arintheus 372
1117 Valentinianus IIII et Valens IIII 373
1118 His conss Saxones caesi Deusone in regione Francorum
1119 Burgundiorum LXXX fere milia quot numquam antea ad
Rhenum descenderunt.
1120 Clearcus praefectus urbi Constantinopoli necessariam
aquam et quam diu civitas optabat induxit.
1121 Gratianus III et Equitius 374
1122 pc Gratiani III et Equitii 375
1123 Valens V et Valentinianus 376
1124 His conss Valentinianus apoplexi Brigitione moritur. Post
quern Gratianus adsumpto imperio Valentiniano fratre cum
patruo Valente regnat.
1125 Gratianus IIII et Merobaudes 377
1126 His conss Alamannorum circiter XXX milia apud
Argentariam oppidum Galliarum caesa.
1127 Gothi diffunduntur in Tracia.
1128 Valens VI et Valentinianus II 378
1129 His conss a Gothis in Tracia Valentis trucidatur exercitus.
Ipse quoque imperator incensa domo ubi se occultaverat
igne combustus est.
1113-1114 om. M 1117 om. M 1118 caeso M Francorum] M Cusp. : Franchorum P 1119 Burgundiorum] P Cusp. : Burgundionum M quod P M 1120 Constantinopoli] M Cusp. : Constantinopolim P et om. M 1126 Alemannorum M : Alemanorum Cusp. aputM 1128 etom.M llom.M 1129 a rest. Mommsen trucidatusM
96
1130 Cui successit in Oriente Theodosius Theodosii filius, quern
sibi in consortium Gratianus ascivit.
1131 Gratianus itaque cum iam XIIII regnaret annis cum
Theodosio regnat annis VI. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.
XXXVIIII
1132 Ausonius et Olybrius 379
1133 Gratianus V et Theodosius 380
1134 His conss Ambrosius episcopus de Christiana fide multa
sublimiter scribit.
1135 Siagrius et Eucherius 381
1136 His conss Martinus episcopus Turonum Galliae civitatis
clarus habetur.
1137 Antonius et Siagrius 382
1138 His conss Athanaricus rex Gothorum Constantinopolim
venit ibique vitam exegit.
1139 Merobaudes II et Saturninus 383
1140 His conss Arcadius Theodosii imperatoris filius Augustus
appellatur.
1141 Ricimer et Glearchus 384
1142 His conss Gratianus apud Lugdunum captus occiditur.
1143 Residui Valentinianus et Theodosius regnant annis VIII.
sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.
XL
1144 Arcadius et Bauto 385
1145 His conss Hieronimus presbyter in Bethleem positus toto
mundo mirabilis habetur.
1131 iam om. P XIIII] P : X X X I M VI] P: III M quibus] P quo M 1134 scribi turP 1135 Eucherius] P Cusp. : Eutherius M 1136 c lau rusM 1141 Glearcus P a 1142 aput M 1145 Bethleem] P Cusp. : Bethlehem M
97
1146 Honorius np et Euhodius 386
1147 Valentinianus III et Eutropius 387
1148 Theodosius II et Cynegius 388
1149 Timasius et Promotus 389
1150 Valentinianus IIII et Neoterius 390
1151 Titianus et Symmachus 391
1152 Arcadius II et Rufinus 392
1153 His conss Valentinianus vitae taedio apud Viennam laqueo
periit.
1154 Theodosius cum iam per XIIII annos regnaret cum Arcadio
et Honorio regnat annis tribus, sub quibus hi consules
fuerunt.
XLI
1155 Theodosius III et Abundantius 393
1156 Arcadius III et Honorius II 394
1157 His conss Iohannes monachus gratia divina praeditus
Theodosium consulentem de eventu belli quod adversum
Eugenium movebat victorem fore pronuntiat.
1158 Olybrius et Probus 395
1159 His conss Theodosius Eugenium tyrannum vincit et
perimit.
1160 Augustinus beati Ambrosii discipulus multa facundia
doctrinaque excellens Yppone regio in Africa episcopus
ordinatur.
1161 Hoc tempore Claudianus poeta insignis habetur.
1162 Theodosius imperator Mediolani moritur.
1150 om.M 1151 Titianus] P Cusp. : Ticianus M 1153 a p u t M V e n n a m M 1154 annis] MCusp. : annos P duob\xs\ PM, tribus emend. Mommsen sequentem Prosperum 1156 Arcadius] P Cusp. :Archad iusM 1157 g r a c i a M divina] M Cusp. : om. P perditus P 1158 Olybrius] P Cusp. : Olibrius M Probius M: Probinus Cusp. 1159 ty r rannumM 1160 discipulisP
98
1163 Post quern Arcadius cum iam regnasset annis XII cum
fratre Honorio regnat annis XIII. sub quo hi consules
fuerunt.
XLII
1164 Arcadius IIII et Honorius II 396
1165 Caesarius et Atticus 397
1166 Honorius IIII et Eutychianus 398
1167 Manlius et Theodorus 399
1168 Stilicho et Aurelianus 400
1169 His conss Gothi Halarico et Radagaiso regibus
ingrediuntur Italiam.
1170 Vincentius et Fravita 401
1171 Arcadius V et Honorius V 402
1172 His conss Pollentiae Stiliconem cum exercitu Romano
Gothi victum acie fugaverunt.
1173 Theodosius Augustus I et Rumoridus 403
1174 Honorius VI et Aristenetus 404
1175 Stilico II et Anthemius 405
1176 Arcadius VI et Probus 406
1177 His conss Vandali et Alani transiecto Reno Gallias
intraverunt.
1178 Honorius VII et Theodosius II 407
1179 Bassus et Philippus 408
1180 His conss Arcadius imperator Constantinopoli moritur.
1181 Honorius cum Theodosio fratris filio regnat annis XV. sub
quibus hi consules fuerunt.
1163 quern] quam M 1165 Caesarius et Atticus] P Cusp. : Cesarius et Aticus M 1166 Eutychianus] P Cusp. : Eutichianus M 1169 Ragadaiso P : Rhadagiso Cusp. 1172 HosM aiceM 1175 Stilico] P Cusp. : Stilicho M 1176ArcadusM VI om. M 1181 sub quibus] P Cusp. : sub quo M
99
XLIH
1182 Honorius VIII et Theodosius III 409
1183 His conss Vandali Hispanias occupaverunt.
1184 Varan et Tertul lus 41 o
1185 His conss Roma a Gothis Halarico duce capta est ubi
clementer usi victoria sunt.
1186 Theodosius Aug IIII cons 411
1187 Honorius Vi l l i et Theodosius V 412
1188 His conss Gothi rege Ataulpho Gallias intraverunt.
1189 Lucius vc cons 413
1190 His conss Burgundiones partem Galliae Rheno tenuere
coniunctam.
1191 Constantius et Constans 414
1192 Honorius X et Theodosius VI 415
1193 Theodosius VII et Pallidius 416
1194 His conss Gothi placati Constantio Placidiam reddiderunt
cuius nuptias promeretur.
1195 Honorius XI et Constantius II 417
1196 Honorius XII et Theodosius VIII 418
1197 Monaxius et Plinta 419
1198 Theodosius Vi l l i et Constantius III 420
1199 His conss Constantius ab Honorio in societatem regni
recipitur.
1200 Agricola et Eustachius 421
1201 His conss Constantius imperator moritur.
1202 Honorius XIII et Theodosius X 422
1183 Hispanias] P Cusp. : Hispannias M 1186 conss P M 1188 Ataulpho] P Cusp. : Ataupho M 1189 conss P 1196 Horius P 1199 Constantius om. M: add. post recipitur Cusp. 1200 Eustachius] MCusp. : Eustathius P
1203 His conss exercitus ad Hispamas contra Vandalos missus
est.
1204 Marinianus etAsclepiodotus 423
1205 His conss Placidia Augusta a fratre Honorio ob
suspicionem invitatorum hostium cum Honorio et
Valentiniano filiis ad orientem mittitur.
1206 Honorius moritur.
1207 et solus Theodosius Romanum imperium tenet annis
XXVII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
XLIIII
1208 Castinus et Victor 424
1209 His conss Theodosius Valentinianum consobrinum
Caesarem facit et cum Augusta matre ad recipiendum
occidentale mittit imperium.
1210 Theodosius XI et Valentinianus caes 425
1211 His conss Iohannem tyrannum Valentinianus imperator
extinxit. Hunosque qui in Italia erant Iohanni praesidio per
Aetium mira felicitate dimovit.
1212 Theodosius XII et Valentinianus II 426
1213 Hierius et Ardabures 427
1214 His conss Bonifacio Africam tenenti infauste bellum
ingeritur.
1215 Gens Vandalorum a Gothis exclusa de Hispaniis ad
Africam transit.
1216 Felix et Taurus 428
1217 His conss Aetius multis Francis caesis quam occupaverant
propinquam Rheno partem recipit Galliarum.
1203 ad Hispanias] P Cusp. : ab Hispannia M vvanda losM 1209 C e s a r e m M 1211 t i r annumM ext incxi tP presidio M E t i u m M
101
1218 Florentius et Dyonisius 429
1219 Theodosius XIII et Valentinianus III 430
1220 Bassus et Antiochus 431
1221 Aetius et Valerius 432
1222 Theodosius XIIII et Maximus 433
1223 Aspar et Ariovindus 434
1224 Theodosius XV et Valentinianus IIII 435
1225 His conss pax facta cum Vandalis data eis ad habitandum
Africae portione.
1226 Gundicharium Burgundionum regem Aetius bello subegit
pacemque ei reddidit supplicanti, quern non multo post
Hunni peremerunt.
1227 Hisidorus et Senator 436
1228 Aetius II et Sigisvultus 437
1229 His conss Valentinianus Augustus ad Theodosium
principem Constantinopolim proficiscitur filiamque eius in
matrimonium accipit.
1230 Theodosius XVI et Faustus 438
1231 Theodosius XVII et Festus 439
1232 His conss bellum adversus Gothos Hunnis auxiliaribus
geritur et Litorius dux Romanus ab eis capitur.
1233 Ginsericus de cuius amicitia nihil metuebatur Carthaginem
dolo pacis invadit.
1234 Valentinianus Aug V et Anatolius 440
1235 His conss Ginsericus Siciliam graviter affligit.
1218 Dion i s iu sM: Dionysius Cusp. 1224 Theosius Pa Valer ianusM 1225 Africe M 1226 Gundicharium] MCusp. : Cundicharium P Burgundionum] Burigundionum P : Burgundionem M subpl icant iM m u l t i M 1229 Valentinianus Augustus] M Cusp. : Aug Valentinianus P 1232 adver iusM auxiliatribus M 1233 amic ic iaM 1234 Anatolius] P Cusp. : Anatholius M
102
1236 Cyrus vc cons 441
1237 His conss Theodosius imperator bellum contra Vandalos
inefficaciter movit.
1238 Dioscorus et Eudoxius 442
1239 His conss Hunni Thracias et Hillyricum saeva populatione
vastarunt.
1240 Cum Ginserico ab Augusto Valentiniano pax confirmata et
certis spatiis Africa inter utrosque divisa est.
1241 Maximus II et Paternus 443
1242 Theodosius XVIII et Albinus 444
1243 His conss Attila rex Hunnorum Bledam fratrem et
consortem in regno suo perimit eiusque populos sibi parere
compellit.
1244 Valentinianus VI et Nomus 445
1245 Aetius III et Symmachus 446
1246 Callepius et Ardabures 447
1247 Postumianus et Zeno 448
1248 Asturius et Protogenes 449
1249 Valentinianus VII et Avienus 450
1250 His conss Theodosius moritur.
1251 Post quern Marcianus adscitur imperio qui regnavit annis
VII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.
XLV
1252 Marcianus Aug et Adelphius 451
1236 conss P 1237 VandalasM 1239 Trac iasM 1240 AffricaP 1243 fratrem] P Cusp. : om. M peremit M populos] emend. Cusp. : populo P M parare M 1251 Marcianus] P Cusp. : Martianus M imper iumP 1252 Marcianus] P Cusp. : Martianus M
103
1253 His conss Romani Aetio duce Gothis auxiliaribus contra
Attilam in campos Catalaunicos pugnaverunt. qui virtute
Gothorum superatus abscessit.
1254 Herculanus et Asporacius 452
1255 His conss Attila redintegratis viribus Aquileiam magna vi
dimicans introivit.
1256 Cum quo a Valentiniano imperatore papa Leo directus
pacem fecit.
1257 Opilio et Vincomalus 453
1258 His conss Attila in sedibus suis moritur.
1259 Aetius et Studius 454
1260 His conss Aetius patricius in palatio manu Valentiniani
imperatoris extinctus est. Boetius vero praefectus pretorio
amicus eius circumstantium gladiis interemptus.
1261 Valentinianus VIII et Anthemius 455
1262 His conss in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii Valentinianus
occiditur. post quern Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra
duos menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur.
1263 Eodem anno per Ginsericum omnibus opibus suis Roma
vacuata est.
1264 Post Maximum Avitus in Gallias sumit imperium.
1265 Iohannes et Varan 456
1266 His conss Placentiae deposuit Avitus imperium.
1267 Constantinus et Rufus 457
1253 auxiliatribus M abcess i tM 1255 Aquilegiam P 1257 Opilio] MCusp. : Opio P VincomaliusM 1258 moribusM 1260 palacioM ValentianiM amimusM circumstantiis interemptus P : circumstantium gladiis interemptis M: circumstantium gladiis peremptus Cusp. 1262 invadit] M Cusp. : invasit P 1267 Constantius M
1268 His conss Marciano defuncto Leo orientis Maiorianus
Italiae suscepit imperium. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.
XLVI
1269 Leo Aug et Maiorianus Aug 458
1270 His conss Maiorianus in Africam movit procinctum.
1271 Ricimer patricius 459
1272 Magnus et Apollonius 460
1273 Severinus et Dagalaifus 461
1274 His conss Maiorianus inmissione Ricimeris extinguitur. cui
Severum natione Lucanum Ravennae succedere fecit in
regnum.
1275 Leo Aug II et Severus Aug 462
1276 Basilius et Vivianus 463
1277 Rusticius et Olybrius 464
1278 His conss rex Halanorum Beorgor apud Pergamum a
patricio Ricimere peremptus est.
1279 Arminerichus et Basiliscus 465
1280 His conss ut dicitur Ricimeris fraude Severus Romae in
palatio veneno peremptus est.
1281 Leo Aug III cons 466
1282 Puseus et Iohannes 467
1283 His conss Anthemius a Leone imperatore ad Italiam
mittitur, qui tertio ab urbe miliario in loco Brontotas
suscepit imperium.
1284 Anthemius Aug II cons 468
1268 Marciano] P Cusp. : Martiano M post fuerunt ins. XLVI P 1270 Affricam P 1271 Pat iciusM a et Patricius P 1272 Apollonius] P Cusp. : Appol lon iusM 1273 Severinus] P Cusp. : Severus M 1274 Maio ranusM R a v e n n e P 1277 Rusticius] P Cusp. : Rusticus M 1278 aput Perganum M Ricimere] MCusp. : RicimireP 1279 Arminerichus] MCusp. : Arminericus P 1280fraudoM 1281 conss P 1283 tercioM militarioM 1284 conss P
105
1285 Hoc consule in Sicilia Marcellinus occiditur.
1286 Marcianus et Zeno 469
1287 His conss Arabundus imperium temptans iussu Anthemii
exilio deportatur.
1288 Severus et Iordanes 470
1289 His conss Romanus patricius affectans imperium capitaliter
est punitus.
1290 Leo Aug IIII et Probianus 471
1291 His conss Constantinopoli affectator tyrannidis a Leone
principe Aspar occiditur.
1292 Festus et Marcianus 472
1293 His conss patricius Ricimer Romae facto imperatore
Olybrio Anthemium contra reverentiam principis et ius
adfinitatis cum gravi clade civitatis extinguit. qui non
diutius peracto scelere gloriatus post XL dies defunctus est.
Olybrius autem VII imperii mense vitam peregit.
1294 Leo Aug V cons 473
1295 His conss Gundibado hortante Glycerius Ravennae sumpsit
imperium.
1296 Eodem anno Leo nepotem suum Leonem consortem facit
imperio.
1297 Leo iunior Aug cons 474
1298 Hoc consule imperator Leo senior defunctus est, cui Zeno
successit imperio, qui regnavit annis XVII. sub quo hi
consules fuerunt.
1299 Eo etiam anno Romae Glycerio Nepus successit in regno. 475
1287 A t h e m i i M 1288 Iordanes] M Cusp. : Iordannes P 1291 affectator tyrannidis] emend. Mommsen : affectata tyrandis Ma : affectata tyrranidis P : affectata tyrranide Cusp. 1294 conss P 1295 imperio P 1297 conss P 1298 hoc consule] M Cusp. : hoc conss P
106
1300 pc Leonis Aug iun 475
1301 Eodem anno Orestes Nepote in Dalmatias fugato filio suo
Augustulo dedit imperium. 476
1302 Basiliscus II et Armatus
1303 His conss ab Odovacre Orestes et frater eius Paulus
extincti sunt, nomenque regis Odovacar adsumpsit, cum
tamen nee purpura nee regalibus uteretur insignibus.
1304 pc Basilisci II et Armati 477
1305 E11US VC COnS 478
1306 Zeno Aug II cons 479
1307 Basilius vc iun cons 480
1308 Placidus vc cons 481
1309 His conss Odovacar in Dalmatiis Odivam vine it et perimit.
1310 Severinus vc cons 482
1311 Faustus vc cons 483
1312 dn Theodericus et Venantius 484
1313 Symmachus vc cons 485
1314 Decius et Longinus 486
1315 Boetius vc cons 487
1316 Hoc cons Odovacar Foeba rege Rugorum victo captoque
potitus est.
1317 Dynamius et Sifidius 488
1318 Probinus et Eusebius 489
1300 pc om. M iun. om. M XLVII ins. Ppost iun. 1303 OdiovacarM 1305 conss P 1306 Aug II cons om. M conss. P 1307 et Basilius M conss P 1308 om. M conss P 1309 Odiovacar M: Odoacer Cusp. Dalmatiis] P Cusp. : Dalmaciis M Odivam] P : Odiciam M: Custodiam Cusp. 1310 conss P 1311 conss P 1312 d c M Theodericus] M Cusp. : Theoderichus P Venantius] P Cusp. : Venatius M 1313 Symmachus] P Cusp. : Simachus M conss P 1314-1315 ponit M post 1316 1315 conss P 1316 ponit M ante 1314 His conss P : Hoc conss M potius M
107
1319 His conss felicissimus atque fortissimus dn rex
Theodericus intravit Italiam.
1320 Cui Odovacar ad Isontium pugnam parans victus cum tota
gente fugatus est.
1321 Eodem anno repetito conflictu Veronae vincitur Odovacar.
1322 Faustus iun cons 490
1323 His conss ad Adduam fluvium Odovacrem dn
Theoderichus rex tertio certamine superavit.
1324 Qui Ravennam fugiens obsidetur inclusus.
1325 Olybrius iun cons 491
1326 Hoc consule Odovacar cum Erulis egressus Ravennam
nocturnis horis ad pontem Candidiani a dn nostro rege
Theoderico memorabili certamine superatur.
1327 Tunc etiam Vandali pace suppliciter postulata a Siciliae
solita depredatione cessarunt.
1328 Eodem anno Zeno occubuit, cui Anastasius in orientali
successit imperio.
1329 Anastasius Aug et Rufus 492
1330 Albinus vc cons 493
1331 Hoc cons dn rex Theodericus Ravennam ingressus
Odovacrem molientem sibi insidias interemit.
1332 Asterius et Praesidius 494
1333 Viator vc cons 495
1334 Paulus vc cons 496
1319 Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theoderichus M 1320 Odovacar] P Cusp. : Odavacar M 1321 VeroneP post Odovacar ins. P XLVIII 1322 conss P 1323 ad Adduam] M Cusp. : adducam P Theoderichus P : Theodoricus M: Theodericus Cusp. 1325 conss. P 1326 Erulis] M: Erudis P : Herulis Cusp. Rav P M Theoderico] P Cusp. : Theodoricho M 1328 AnatasiusM" 1330 conss P 1331 Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theodorichus M 1333 conss P 1334 conss P 1335 conss P
108
1335 Anastasius Aug II cons 497
1336 Paulinus et Iohannes 498
1337 Iohannes vc cons 499
1338 Patricius et Hypatius 500
1339 Hoc anno dn rex Theodericus Romam cunctorum votis
expetitus advenit et senatum suum mira affabilitate tractans
Romanae plebi donavit annonas. atque admirandis moeniis
deputata per singulos annos maxima pecuniae quantitate
subvenit. sub cuius felici imperio plurimae renovantur
urbes, munitissima castella conduntur. Consurgunt
admiranda palatia magnisque eius operibus antiqua
miracula superantur.
1340 Avienus et Pompeius 501
1341 Avienus iun et Probus 502
1342 His conss dn rex Theodericus aquam Ravennam perduxit,
cuius formam sumptu proprio instauravit quae longis ante
fuerat ad solum reducta temporibus.
1342a Volusianus et Dexicrates 503
1343 Caetheus vc cons 504
1344 Hoc cons virtute dn regis Theoderici victis Vulgaribus
Sirmium recepit Italia.
1345 Theodorus et Sabinianus 505
1346 Messala et Ariovinna 506
1347 Anastasius Aug HI et Venantius 507
1337 conss P 1338 Hypatius] P Cusp. : Hypatias A/6 patias Ma 1339 Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theodorichus M singulos annos] M Cusp, annos singulos P plurime P cartella M 1342 forma P M: forinas Cusp, quae] P Cusp. : que M 1342a om. P M et Cusp, sed opinor hos consules restituendos esse. 1344 conss P 1347 I I M
1348 Venantius mn et Celer 508
1349 His conss contra Francos a domno nostro destinatur
exercitus qui Gallias Francorum depredatione confusas
victis hostibus ac fugatis suo adquisivit imperio.
1350 Importunus vc cons 509
1351 Boetius vc cons 5io
1352 Felix et Secundinus 511
1353 Paulus et Muschianus 512
1354 Probus et Clementinus 513
1355 Senator vc cons 514
1356 Me etiam consule in vestrorum laude temporum adunato
clero ut populo Romanae ecclesiae rediit optata concordia.
1357 Florentius et Anthemius 515
1358 His consulibus dn rex Theodericus filiam suam domnam
Amalasuintam gloriosi viri dn Eutharici matrimonio deo
auspice copulavit.
1359 Petrus vc cons 516
1360 Anastasius et Acapitus 517
1361 Magnus vc cons 518
1362 Eo anno dn Eutharicus Cillica mirabili gratia senatus et
plebis ad edendum exceptus est feliciter consulatum.
1363 dn Eutharicus Cillica et Iustinus Aug 519
1349 Francorum] M Cusp. : Franchorum P hostilibus M3 hostibus Ma 1350 conss P 1351 conss P 1355 conss P 1356 consule] MCusp : conss P corcordiaP 1358 Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theoderichus M 1359 conss P 1360-1361 om.P 1360 Agapitus Cusp. 1362 sene tusM
1364 Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula editionibus singulis
stupente etiam Symmacho orientis legato, divitias Gothis
Romanisque donatas dignitates cessit in curiam, muneribus
amphiteatralibus diversi generis feras quas praesens aetas
pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit. cuius spectaculis
voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub devotione
transmisit. cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto
amore civibus Romanis insederat ut eius adhuc
praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam ad gloriosi patris
remearet aspectus. ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis
Romanisque dona largitus est ut solus potuerit superare
quern Romae celebraverat consulatum.
1365 Igitur ut effusam annorum seriem auctorum testificatione
digestam sub brevitatis compendio redigamus, ab Adam
usque ad diluvium sicut ex chronicis Eusebii Hieronimi
collegimus anni sunt IICCXLII.
1366 A diluvio usque ad Ninum Assyriorum regem anni sunt
DCCCXCVIIII.
1367 A Nino usque ad Latinum regem anni sunt DCCCLII.
1368 A Latino rege usque ad Romulum anni sunt CCCCLVH.
1369 A Romulo usque ad Brutum et Tarquinium primos consules
anni sunt CCXL.
1370 A Bruto et Tarquinio usque ad consulatum vestrum sicut ex
Tito Livio et Aufidio Basso et paschali clarorum virorum
auctoritate firmato collegimus anni sunt MXXXI.
1371 Ac sic totus ordo saeculorum usque ad consulatum vestrum
coll igitur annis VDCCXXI.
1364 cuisM" devocioneM presentiamM aspectas P itaeratis edicionibus M 1365 Eusebii] P Cusp. : Eusebei M 1366 ab diluio P Assiriorum P 1370 clarorum virorum] Pb MCusp. : virorum clarorum Pa 1371 seculorum M
Chapter 3: Chronology and Consuls
Cassiodorus' Count of the Years
Cassiodorus, in his preface, where he claims to be restoring the fasti, and in his
concluding paragraph, in which he adds up the years from Creation to 519, lays heavy
emphasis on the chronology of his work, so it makes sense to start with his chronological
sources and the chronological structure of his work. Cassiodorus had to construct an
over-arching chronology of the world from creation to his day, and he had set himself the
further task of incorporating the consular list from the first consuls through to 519 into
that chronology. There is no other extant Latin work from late antiquity which does quite
the same thing.
In this chapter I will first discuss how he arrived at the number of years he cites in
his supputatio, including the restoration of four consular pairs. I will then treat
individually the consular lists which he used in constructing his consular list, the first, an
epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus, and the second, Victorius of Aquitaine's Cursus
Paschalis. In the last section, I will attempt to explain how Cassiodorus reconciled the
consular list of Victorius with the imperial reigns he found in Jerome so that he could
then assign the historical notes which he took from Jerome to particular consular pairs.
As I have noted above, Cassiodorus concluded his Chronica with a supputatio.
Igitur ut effusam annorum seriem auctorum testificatione digestam sub brevitatis compendio redigamus, ab Adam usque ad diluvium, sicut ex chronicis Eusebii Hieronymii collegimus, anni sunt IICCXLII. a diluvio usque ad Ninum Assyriorum regem anni sunt DCCCXCVIIII. a Nino usque ad Latinum regem
112
anni sunt DCCCLII. a Latino rege usque ad Romulum anni sunt CCCCLVII. a Romulo usque ad Brutum et Tarquinium primos consules anni sunt CCXL. a Bruto et Tarquinio usque ad consulatum vestrum, sicut ex Tito Livio et Aufidio Basso et paschali clarorum virorum auctoritate firmato collegimus, anni sunt MXXXI. ac sic totus ordo saeculorum usque ad consulatum vestrum colligitur annis VDCCXXI.
Therefore, in order that we might very briefly bring together the vast order of the years, set in order through the witness of authors, from Adam to the flood, as we gather from Jerome's chronicle of Eusebius, there are 1242 years. From the flood to Ninus, the king of the Assyrians, there are 899 years. From Ninus to king Latinus there are 852 years. From king Latinus to Romulus there are 457 years. From Romulus to Brutus and Tarquinius, the first consuls, there are 240 years. From Brutus and Tarquinius to your consulship, as we gather from Titus Livius and Aufidius Bassus and an Easter calendar supported by the authority of famous men, there are 1031 years. And thus the whole order of the ages up to your consulship adds up to 5721 years.
The total, 5721, is a correct addition of the numbers he provides. In simpler form the
addition is as follows:
From Adam to the flood: 2242 From the flood to Ninus: 899 From Ninus to Latinus: 852 From Latinus to Romulus: 457 From Romulus to Brutus: 240 From Brutus to Eutharic: 1031
Total: 5721
The first five numbers are fairly easily dealt with, since they all derive, in one
form or another, from Jerome, as Cassiodorus states. The 2,242 years from Adam to the
flood can be found in Jerome's supputationes to his translation of Eusebius.86
The Assyrian Kings
Cassiodorus counts from the flood to the beginning of Ninus' reign as 899 years.
86 Helm, 174 and 250.
113
Jerome counted from the flood to the birth of Abraham as being 942 years,87 but he also
gave the year of Ninus' reign in which Abraham was born: the forty-third.88 Cassiodorus
merely subtracted 43 from 942 and came up with 899. He chose the beginning of Ninus'
reign as more suitable to his secular purpose, since Ninus was the first king of the first of
Eusebius' four world empires. Cassiodorus then lists the Assyrian kings from Ninus to
Mithreus and the length of their reigns, taken from Jerome, with a total number of 852
years, as follows, with Jerome's alongside for comparison.
Cassiodorus
Ninus Samiramis Ninyas Arivis Arelius Xerxes Armametres Molechus Balaeus Althadas Mamithus Magchaleus Sfereus Mamylus Sparaethus Ascatadis Amyntes Belochus Bellepares Lamprides Sosares Lampares Panias Sosarmus Mithreus
52 42 38 30 40 30 38 35 52 32 30 30 20 30 40 40 45 25 30 32 20 30 4589
19 27
Jerome
Ninus Semiramis Ninyas Arius Aralius Xerxes Armamitres Belochus Balaeus Altadas Mamynthus Magchaleus Sfaerus Mamylus Sparaethus Ascatades Amynthes Belochus Bellepares Lamprides Sosares Lampares Pannias Sosarmus Mithraeus
52 42 38 25 40 30 38 35 52 32 30 30 20 30 40 40 45 25 30 32 20 30 45 19 27
87 Helm, 15, 174 and 250. 88 Helm, 20a. 89 The length of Panias' reign and the next name, Sosarmus, are missing in our manuscripts, but the total
of the years of Assyrian kings indicates that both require restoration to the text.
Total 852 852
Latinus 32 Tautanes 32
Aside from some differences in the spelling of the names, the numbers are
identical. But Cassiodorus ascribed the same length of reign to Latinus as Jerome had to
Tautanes, thirty-two years.90 It appears that Cassiodorus simply replaced Tautanes' name
with Latinus' name. No other ancient author attests to the length of thirty-two years for
Latinus' reign.91 Jerome, however, in a short note, says that "ante Aeneam Ianus,
Saturnus, Picus, Faunus, Latinus in Italia regnarunt ann. circiter CL" / "before Aeneas
Ianus, Saturnus, Picus, Faunus and Latinus ruled in Italy for around 150 years."92 Vergil
suggests that Latinus had ruled in Italy for a long time before the arrival of Aeneas and
the Trojans.93 Unless Cassiodorus had some other source (which is unlikely), it is possible
that he simply settled on the thirty-two years for Latinus as a not unreasonable number.
This weak explanation does not excuse him from the charge of arbitrarily making the
beginning of Latinus' reign dovetail with the beginning of Tautanes'.
The problem is further complicated by the date chosen by Cassiodorus for the
length of Aeneas' wanderings. Cassiodorus diverges from Jerome in regard to the length
of time he assigns to Aeneas' travels before his arrival in Italy. Jerome/Eusebius reports
two versions of the length of the journey: "post III annum captivitatis Troiae sive, ut
quidam volunt, post annum VIII regnavit Aeneas ann. Ill" / "after the third year from the
capture of Troy, or, as some say, after the eighth year, Aeneas ruled for three years."94
90 Helm 59a 10. 91 Dionysius of Halicarnassus says he reigned for thirty-five years (1.34.3). Syncellus, p. 200, says he
reigned for thirty-six years and that Aeneas arrived in the thirty-third year. 92 Helm 62a, c. 93 Vergil, Aeneid 7.45-46: "rex arva Latinus et urbes / iam senior longa placidas in pace regebat. " 94 Helm 62b.
115
Jerome follows the first version in his dating scheme, but Cassiodorus deliberately chose
to give Aeneas eight years, presumably because Vergil had said that Aeneas had been
wandering for at least seven years after the fall of Troy.95 Jerome says that Troy fell in the
twenty-fifth year of Tautanes' reign. Cassiodorus accordingly reports that Troy fell in the
twenty-fifth year of Latinus' reign. It followed that Aeneas had to wander for eight years
before taking up the kingship in Italy. Since Eusebius/Jerome had given Aeneas only
three years of wandering, and not eight, they put the first year of Aeneas' reign, not in the
year after Tautanes' death, but rather in the twenty-ninth year. Cassiodorus' deliberate
choice to give Aeneas eight years of wandering thus adds four years to Jerome's
chronology.96
The lengths of the reigns of the Latin kings of Alba Longa from Aeneas to
Amulius Silvius are likewise drawn from Jerome. The reign of Amulius Silvius, the last
king of Alba Longa, is given by Cassiodorus as forty-three years, while Jerome counted
forty-four years.97 However, several of the most important manuscripts of Jerome have
forty-three, as does Prosper.98 The final tally of years shows the correct addition of his
own list (from Latinus to Amulius), rather than a number taken from elsewhere.
Cassiodorus simply accepted the reading of his text of Jerome without actually counting
the individual years of each reign in Jerome. The reigns of the kings from Romulus to
95 septima post Troiae excidium iam uertitur aestas, cum freta, cum terras omnis, tot inhospita saxa sideraque emensae ferimur, dum per mare magnum Italiam sequimur fugientem et uoluimur undis. (Vergil, Aeneid 5.626-629)
96 We could be critical of Cassiodorus because he chose an eight year journey for Aeneas, but really only gave him seven years. Latinus' reign was thirty-two years and Troy was destroyed in the twenty-fifth year. That only leaves Aeneas room for seven years of wandering. But if Cassiodorus was counting inclusively, he can just squeak by. Cassiodorus was faithful enough to his source that he did not want to give a number (seven years) that was not attested by Jerome.
97 Helm, 84b and 88b. 98 Chron. Min. I, 144.
116
Tarquinius Superbus are taken directly from Jerome and add up to 240 years without any
alterations or variations.
The 1031 years from the first consuls to 519 are much harder to deal with because
Cassiodorus did not depend on a single surviving source - he used an epitome of Livy,
Victorius, and a continuation of Victorius - but also because the manuscripts of
Cassiodorus do not have enough consular pairs to make up the total, and it is to this
problem that I now turn before we treat each of his sources.
Restoring Four Consular Pairs to the Text
In his supputatio at the end of the Chronica, Cassiodorus counted 1031 years from
Brutus and Tarquinius, the first consuls, to Eutharic's consulship in 519 CE, which is
correct since the first year of the Republic in Jerome (and therefore Cassiodorus) is 512
BC." But in the text of Cassiodorus as found in the manuscripts there are only 1027 years
accounted for: 963 by consular pairs, forty by decemviral rule (154), twenty by the rule
of military tribunes and four by the anarchy (183-186). This means that either
Cassiodorus miscounted or four pairs of consuls have fallen out.100
In the text I have restored four consular pairs in order to make the number of years
in Cassiodorus' final total match the number of years accounted for by consular pairs.
Mommsen's restorations were different from mine, in part because he miscounted the
99 See Mommsen 1861 and 1894 and Sanders 1903. Cassiodorus' consular list from the Republic has received a great deal of attention, particularly at the turn of the twentieth century, because of its value as an offspring of the Livian epitome. I will discuss the Livian epitome extensively in chapter 3. What follows is only a discussion of the number of years and the restoration of the text.
100 There are only 1028 years from 509 BC (the Varronian date of the first consuls) to AD 519, so there was bound to be some trouble fitting even a correct consular list into 1031 years. In addition, Victorius, Cassiodorus' source for most of the imperial period, has one year too many - the Eastern-promulgated consuls of 346 which he put between 344 and 345.
number of years in his text of Cassiodorus, and in part because he overlooked some key
pieces of evidence which help to restore three consular pairs in the imperial period. I have
tried to use only evidence internal to Cassiodorus' Chronica for determining which names
require restoration.
We can never be sure, of course, that Cassiodorus did not himself miscount the
years; Mommsen, after all, himself miscounted the consular pairs in his own edition.101
However, as we shall see, Cassiodorus approached his work with deliberation and care,
and so we must proceed on the assumption that his count was correct. Still, even if we
make the assumption that his count was correct, there is no guarantee that the consular
pairs which I am about to discuss fell out after he published the Chronica. There was,
presumably, at least one rough draft, and probably more, and consular pairs could have
fallen out at any time before or after the number 1031 was arrived at. What follows, then,
is necessarily to be treated as uncertain.
Before we discuss the particulars, we must treat the issue of how Cassiodorus
counted his years. It seems obvious that he would count years when there were consuls
by consular pairs, but during the empire he also took pains to make his consular list
match the imperial reigns, not altogether successfully.102 Mommsen believed that
Cassiodorus was careful to make his count of years for individual reigns match his count
of consular years within each reign (and as a result excluded the consuls of 503 CE from
his list).103 But the evidence suggests that he counted by consular year alone, and only
101 Mommsen 1894, 115, counted 1028 years, which is incorrect. He counted one consulship too many for the Republican period.
102 Cassiodorus' synchronization of imperial reigns with his consular years will be discussed below, pp. 207ff.
103 Mommsen 1894, 116. See below, p. 119ff.
118
after the consular list was drawn up did he add the historical notices and imperial reigns.
Cassiodorus' consular list is not by any means an accurate one. The fasti for the
early imperial period are, in all our manuscript sources, sadly inaccurate. However, there
are only seven consular pairs which appear in Cassiodorus' sources—an epitome of Livy
and Aufidius Bassus, and Victorius of Aquitaine—and are also are missing from his text.
It is to these which we must look for the four pairs to be restored. They are listed here in
the order in which they will be treated below: 1) the consuls of 503 CE, Fl. Dexicrates and
Fl. Volusianus; 2) the consuls of 297 CE, Maximianus V and Maximus II; 3) the consuls of
29 CE, C. Fufius Geminus and L. Rubellius Geminus;104 4) the consuls of 193 BCE, L.
Cornelius and Q. Minucius; 5) the second consul of 66, L. Volcacius, and the first from
65 BCE, L. Cotta (these two years have been compressed, by a haplography, into a single
year which reads "Man. Lepidus et L. Torquatus"); 6) the consuls of 269 BCE, Q. Ogulnius
and C. Fabius and 7) the consuls of 421 BCE, Cn. Fabius and T. Quinctius.
The restoration of four consular pairs is by no means an easy matter. We must
decide for or against any given consular pair using evidence which does not come from
the manuscripts. I have tried in my deliberations to make decisions based on the internal
evidence offered by the Chronica itself and by the evidence it offers for Cassiodorus'
chronographic method. I have not resorted to outside sources or numbers which
Cassiodorus does not explicitly say he used. In this I have departed both from Mommsen
and Sanders, both of whom used Eutropius' tally of 1118 years from the first consuls to
the end of Valentinian's reign at 10.18.3 of the Breviarium as a target. But, though
104 These names were present in Aufidius Bassus and Victorius.
Cassiodorus used Eutropius, he used him very haphazardly and there is no evidence that
he aimed for this number of years. Quite the contrary, since he explicitly said in his
preface that his intent in the Chronica was to restore historica fides to the fasti, and at
least part of this claim is due to the fact that Cassiodorus can name the sources he used
for his time-line, and he does not name Eutropius as a source for his chronography. We
would expect him to follow only the evidence of his named sources.
We have something of a mid-point from which to begin. During the reign of
Philip the one thousandth anniversary of the founding of the city was celebrated.
Cassiodorus took his entry about the anniversary from Jerome, and, in Helm's edition, the
event is placed in the second year of Philip's reign, but some manuscripts place it in the
first year, and others authors who used Jerome, place it in the third year.105 Cassiodorus,
however, shifts the event to the fifth year. In the many manuscripts of Jerome's chronicle,
the ascription of an historical event to a given year varies from copy to copy, but the shift
is normally not more than one, or occasionally two, years.106 A shift of three or four years
invites suspicion of a deliberate act. The count of consular pairs in Cassiodorus' Chronica
as it stands in the manuscripts from the first consuls to the year in which he placed the
anniversary is 694. Add that to the 240 years from Romulus' founding of the city to the
first consuls (a number Cassiodorus got from Jerome), the forty years of decemviral rule,
and the twenty-four years of military tribunes and anarchy, and the total is 998.
Cassiodorus evidently counted the number of years from the beginning of Romulus' reign
to the anniversary, and displaced the anniversary to make a total of 1000 years. This
105 Helm, 217. Mss A and B place the event in the first year, while Orosius places it in the third (7.20). 106 See below, p. 216ff.
seems to me good evidence that Cassiodorus counted his consular years by hand at least
once, and further suggests that of the four pairs of consuls who are to be restored, two
should come from the five missing consular pairs noted by his sources which precede
Philip's reign in Cassiodorus' text.
Of the seven consular pairs found in Cassiodorus' sources and missing from his
chronicle, only two follow the reign of Philip, those of 503 and 297. In the case of the
consuls of 503 it is simply a matter of whether we believe that Cassiodorus could forget
the consuls sixteen years prior to the composition of his work. He did not include the
number of years of Anastasius' reign (1328) with the result that we cannot compare the
number of consuls with the number of regnal years. Mommsen believed that he either
forgot the consuls or, having included them, miscounted; Sanders believed that they
ought to be restored.107 In accordance with my arguments above, however, I believe that
they ought to be restored. Cassiodorus' source for the imperial consuls, Victorius of
Aquitaine's Easter calendar, ended in 457 and, although Cassiodorus indicates that the
text he had was continued by others,108 it is impossible to know just how far his Easter
calendar went. Still, as I will argue below, Cassiodorus, like many others, had a copy of
Victorius' list which was maintained by others or even by himself, from year to year, and
must have included the consuls of 503. Cassiodorus' list of consuls from 457 to 519 is
excellent in other respects, and it is almost unbelievable that he could have omitted these
consuls.109
107 Mommsen 1861, 567, and 1894, 116; Sanders 1905, 9. 108 In his epilogue he talks of the "clarorum virorum auctoritate'V'the authority of famous men," which
would appear to indicate that he meant not only Victorius, but also his continuators, who may well have been anonymous.
109 The western consul for the year, Volusianus, is not well known, but there is no reason to suspect that he was deliberately omitted from the consular lists. See Variae 4.22f, where Volusianus is called
The consuls of 297 are not in the manuscripts of the Chronica. Cuspinianus has
them, but he regularly supplemented the information he drew from Cassiodorus with
other sources.110 Since both Maximianus and Maximus went on to hold further
consulships, Cuspinianus must have seen the omission of Maximianus' fifth and
Maximus' second consulships, and re-inserted them, probably through reference to the
Codex Calendar of 354, of which he had a copy, and to which he refers regularly through
these years.111 The difficulty with restoring them lies with the fact that Diocletian is given
a reign of only twenty years, whereas, with the consuls of 297 restored, we get twenty-
one consular pairs. This goes against Cassiodorus' normal procedure of matching
consular pairs with imperial years. However, I accept Mommsen's argument for their
inclusion in Cassiodorus' original text.112 He argues that Jerome does not mention the one
year of Galerius' reign between the abdication of Diocletian and Maximianus, but assigns
an empty year there before the accession of Constantine. Jerome clearly assigns
Diocletian's and Maximianus' abdication to the twentieth year of Diocletian's reign. This
is counted not by regnal years, the customary manner in Jerome, but by years of
persecution. The third year of Diocletian's persecution is reserved for Constantius and
Galerius, but their reigns are not "counted" as such.113 Perhaps to get some clarification
on Jerome's chronology, Cassiodorus referred to Eutropius for further information about
Constantius and Galerius. He remarks, "sed Constantius tantum Augusti dignitate
contentus cum esset otiosus, anni ipsius adscribuntur filio eius Constantino" / "but since
patricius, CLRE for the year in question, and Moorhead (1992), 149. 110 For instance, Cuspinianus substitutes, correctly, the name "Constantius" for Cassiodorus1 "Constans"
in the years 352, 353 and 354. 111 Cuspinianus refers to the document as the "auctor ignotus." 112 Mommsen 1894, 116, n. 1. 113 Helm 228. See Burgess 1997.
122
Constantius was free from public duties and satisfied with the rank of Augustus alone, his
years are assigned to those of his son, Constantine."114 The remark is difficult to
understand because no extra years are added to Constantine's reign, and Jerome seems
clear enough that Constantius died the year of, or the year after Diocletian's resignation.115
Furthermore, the historical events which Cassiodorus takes from Jerome show
that he included the consuls of 297 in his original list. The note about Diocletian's order
that he be worshiped as a god comes in the eleventh year in Jerome's list. It comes in
Diocletian's eleventh year as well only if the consuls of 297 are restored. The same is true
of the notes on the defeat of the Alamanni and the triumph of Diocletian and
Maximianus, in the fifteenth and nineteenth years of Diocletian's reign. It is possible that
the consular names fell out early in the textual tradition due to a scribal error. In 296
Diocletian held his fifth consulship and Constantius his second. The similarity of the
numbers of consulships between the two years may have caused the omission.
Finally, it seems unlikely that Cassiodorus should omit a pair of consuls whose
omission would stand out because of the missing iteration numbers. It is more likely that
they dropped out in the later manuscript tradition than during Cassiodorus' work on the
Chronica.116 The explanation would seem to be homoeoteleuton, since both the consuls of
296 and 297 end with "-us II."
114 Eutropius 10.2, "Constantius tamen, contentus dignitate Augusti, Italiae atque Africae administrandae sollicitudinem recusavit..." / "But Constantius, satisfied with the rank of Augustus, refused the responsibility of the administration of Italy and Africa."
115 It is also possible that he was led astray by the rapid and confusing course of events which followed Diocletian's resignation. Cassiodorus was perhaps not sure when Constantius died amidst the turmoil.
116 Cassiodorus' source, Victorius of Aquitaine, was very particular about iteration numbers, as will be demonstrated below, which further suggests that Cassiodorus at least had them in front of him when he was preparing his work.
123
If the consuls of 503 and 297 are to be restored, two more consular pairs need
restoration from before the one thousandth anniversary of the founding of Rome to make
up the total of 1031 years from 509 BCE to 519 CE. To recap, there are five consulships
which appear in Cassiodorus' sources, but not in the manuscripts: the consuls of 29 CE, C.
Fufius Geminus and L. Rubellius Geminus; the consuls of 193 BCE, L. Cornelius and Q.
Minucius; the second consul of 66, L. Volcacius, and the first from 65 BCE, L. Cotta; the
consuls of 269 BCE, Q. Ogulnius and C. Fabius; the consuls of 421 BCE, Cn. Fabius and T.
Quinctius. Only two of these can be chosen, and I believe they must be the consuls of 29
CE and those of 421 BCE.
When Cassiodorus combined the consular list of Victorius with the regnal years of
Jerome, he was very careful to assign to each imperial reign the correct corresponding
number of consuls. That is, when he says that Commodus reigned for thirteen years, he
assigns thirteen consular pairs to the reign; when he says that Trajan reigned for nineteen
years, six months and fifteen days, he assigns twenty consular pairs to the reign.117 The
sole exception in the manuscripts is the reign of Tiberius, where twenty-three regnal years
are given only twenty-two consular pairs, which suggests that a pair of consuls has
dropped out. Cassiodorus' source, Victorius of Aquitaine's Cursus Paschalis, lists the first
consuls after the crucifixion as "duobus Geminis" and Prosper, the source of Victor, has
"Fufio Gemino et Rubellio Gemino consulibus" as the year of the crucifixion.118 The
manuscripts of the Chronica, however, appear to put the crucifixion in the fifth
117 I deal with Cassiodorus' combination of his consular list with the regnal years of Jerome in much more detail below, pp. 207ff.
118 Ms. S of Victorius does not list the consuls of the year 29 as "duobus Geminis," but gives their gentilicia instead: "Ruffio et Rubellio" (a mistake for "Fufio et Rubellio"). But in the line above the start of Victorius list there has been added "Crucifixio Christi consulibus duobus Geminis."
124
consulship of Tiberius.1191 believe that "duo Gemini" needs to be restored to the text
immediately before the report of the crucifixion, and I have done so in my new edition.
Dating the crucifixion to the year when the two Gemini were consuls was
widespread in antiquity; it was a very famous date, and appears in many of the late
antique lists.120 It is difficult to imagine that Cassiodorus did not know this date, and the
consuls were the first pair in his primary source, Victorius.
Cuspinianus was distressed by the evidence of some authors that Jesus was
crucified in the consulship of the "two Gemini," in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign,121
while others put the crucifixion in the eighteenth year. He moves on, however, confessing
that he cannot resolve the problem, but returns to it when he comes to the crucifixion in
the Chronica. Cassiodorus' note on the crucifixion in both in the surviving manuscripts,
and in the manuscript that Cuspinianus had, is placed under the fifth consulship of
Tiberius, which, officially, he held alone since his colleague for the year, Seianus, had
undergone the damnatio memoriae. The note is taken largely from Jerome and reads:
"His conss dominus noster Iesus Christus passus est VIII k. Apr. et defectio solis facta
est, qualis ante vel postmodum numquam fuit'V'Under these consuls our lord Jesus Christ
suffered on the eighth day before the kalends of April and there was an eclipse of the sun
119 Chron. 634. 120 The following list is quoted from Burgess (2002), 276, n. 67: "Simply listing those in Mommsen's
Chron. Min. volumes, we have the preface to the Liberian catalogue of Roman bishops contained in the Chron. 354 (1: 73.2), the Computatio a. 452, 69 (1: 153.13); Prosper § 388 (1: 409-10); Victorius of Aquitaine, Cursus Paschalis (1: 683.22, 686), and the Prologus Paschae ad Vitalem (1: 737.32). See also Lactantius, de mortibus persecutorum 2.1 and Div. Inst. 4.10.18; Augustine, de ciuitate dei 18.54 (ed. Dombart-Kalb, p. 344.3); and the Anonymi Libellus de computo Paschali, PL 59: 553 A and D (of the mid-fifth century), as well a third century reference from Ulpian in Mosaicarum et Romanorum legum collatio 8.7.3, in Paul Krueger, Theodor Mommsen, and Wilhelm Studemund (eds.), Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani 3, Berlin 1890, 166.15." To this list can be added Tertullian Adversus Iudaeos 8.17.
121 Cuspinianus, pp. 369-371.
125
such as never was either before or since." Cuspinianus notes reasonably that "Si enim sub
quinto Tiberii consulatu passionem Christi voluisset denotare, dixisset Hoc cos, non His
conss'V'If he had wanted to note the passion of Christ under the fifth consulship of
Tiberius, he would have said, "under this consul" not "under these consuls." Furthermore,
though it is difficult to assess, Cuspinianus says that there is a blank space in his text:
"cum itaque in exemplari unico, quod habui, in hoc loco vacuum reperissem spacium,
mox deesse Consules duos conieci, quos diligenter undique disquirens, tandem reperi in
quinto libro Taciti, quos subscribam fideliter et opem hanc autori nostro afferam corrupto
et manco'V'since, therefore, in the single copy which I had, I had found an empty space
in this spot, I conjectured that two consuls were missing, which, looking everywhere
carefully, I at last found in the fifth book of Tacitus. I will add them just as they are and
will bring this help to our corrupt and defective author." Cuspinianus thus restores the
consuls of 32, Gnaeus Domitius and Camillus Scribonianus to the spot immediately
before the note on the crucifixion.
I believe, however, that the consular pair "duo Gemini" ought to be restored to the
text. These consuls are present in Cassiodorus' list in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign
as C. Rubellius and C. Fufius, and perhaps their presence there prevented their restoration
by Cuspinianus, Mommsen and others.122 But Cassiodorus has the consuls of 30 listed
twice as well, as M. Vinicius and L. Cassius in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, and as
Vinicius and Longinus in the eighteenth year. The reason for the duplication is the change
in source, as Cassiodorus abandoned the epitome of Aufidius Bassus, his source for the
122 Mommsen makes no mention of it at all. Cuspinianus knew that the consuls C. Rubellius and C. Fufius were the two Gemini, but did not know that Cassiodorus' change in sources was responsible for the doubling up of consular pairs.
126
consuls between 9 BCE and 31 CE, in favour of Victorius, his source for the imperial
consuls down to 457 (and a continuation for the rest). The names appeared differently in
both texts, and thus appear twice in Cassiodorus. The fact that the Gemini appear in
Tiberius' fifteenth year is therefore no impediment to their appearing in the eighteenth
year as well.
Finally, Cassiodorus took his note on the birth of the poet Persius from Jerome.
Jerome has the note in the twenty-second year of Tiberius. If we restore the two Gemini
to Cassiodorus' text, his note will also appear in Tiberius' twenty-second year, but only
the twenty-first without it - further evidence that the manuscript reading as we have it is
missing a year.123
Given Cuspinianus' testimony that there was an empty space, and the words of
Cassiodorus himself, which imply that there were two consuls in the year of the
crucifixion, not one, the overwhelming evidence in the ancient sources that the
crucifixion was in the consulship of the two Gemini, and the extra consulship required for
Tiberius reign, the restoration of "duo Gemini" seems justified.124
Only one year remains to be restored to make the total of 1031 years which
Cassiodorus supplies. Of the four remaining contenders, 66/65, 193, 269 and 421 BCE, the
last, Cn. Fabius et T. Quinctius, must be restored. Though Mommsen believed that the
123 As will be demonstrated below, Cassiodorus appears always to have placed historical events in his work by counting years from the beginning of imperial reigns, not from the end.
124 On the other hand, Cuspinianus may well be correct in his restoration. Cassiodorus' normal practice would have been to construct a consular list and then enter the historical details. If for some reason Cassiodorus knew that the consuls of the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign were, in fact, the two Gemini, then he may well have opted for using Aufidius Bassus all the way to the eighteenth year of Tiberius' reign, following Eusebius/Jerome, and putting the crucifixion there, ignoring the first consular pair of Victorius since he trusted Bassus more. The correct consular pair might then have been excised in the middle ages by a copyist who believed that the crucifixion took place during the consulship of the Gemini.
consular pair did not appear in Cassiodorus, I assert, with Sanders and Schmidt, that they
must have appeared in the original work.125 Without them cannot be explained the
peculiar ascription of forty years of reign to the decemvirs who entered into office in 303.
In fact, as we find in both Livy and Eutropius, the decemvirate in question lasted for only
two years, so Cassiodorus' forty years needs considerable explanation.
When Cassiodorus added his historical entries for the early Republic, he made use
of Eutropius on one occasion only: the defeat of the Gauls by Camillus in 392 BCE and the
years of military tribunates and anarchy which followed his dictatorship. Cassiodorus
says:
His conss. post urbem captam redeuntes Gallos dux Romanus nomine Camillus extinxit, de quibus triumphans in urbe quasi et ipse patriae conditor Romulus meruit nuncupari. Tunc dignitates mutatae sunt et in loco consulum per annos XVII tribuni militares fuerunt. Quibus ob insolentiam remotis per annos IIII potestas consulum tribunorumque cessavit. Deinde rursus tribus annis per tribunos militares est administrata res publica. post annos vero XXIIII reversa est dignitas consularis.
While these men were consuls a Roman leader by the name of Camillus defeated the Gauls as they were returning home after the capture of the city. In triumphing over them in the city, he earned the name of "Romulus," as though he was himself the founder of his country. Then the political offices were changed an in place of the consuls there were military tribunes for seventeen years. When they were removed for four years because of their unruliness, the power of the consuls and tribunes ceased. Then, again, for three years the republic was administered by military tribunes. After twenty-four years, the consular office was reinstated.
The passages from Eutropius (in part) are as follows:
Statim Galli Senones ad urbem venerunt et...etiam urbem occupaverunt...sed secutus eos Camillus ita cecidit, ut et aurum, quod his
125 Mommsen 1861, 555-556 and 1894, 115 and 125, Sanders 1905, 11. The consular pair is in Cuspinianus, 135, but he had a copy of Livy to hand with which he supplemented the material he found in Cassiodorus, so they need not have appeared in the archetype.
128
datum fuerat, et omnia, quae ceperant, militaria signa revocaret. ita tertio triumphans urbem ingressus est et appellatus secundus Romulus, quasi et ipse patriae conditor.
Anno trecentesimo sexagesimo quinto ab urbe condita, post captam autem primo, dignitates mutatae sunt, et pro duobus consulibus facti tribuni militares consulari potestate... Verum dignitas tribunorum militarium non diu perseveravit. nam post aliquantum nullos placuit fieri et quadrennium in urbe ita fluxit, ut potestates ibi maiores non essent. praesumpserunt tamen tribuni militares consulari potestate iterum dignitatem et triennio perseveraverunt. rursus consules facti. (Eutropius, 1.20.3-2.3)
At once the Gallic Senones came to the city and...even occupied the city...but Camillus followed them and so cut them down that he recovered both the gold which had been given to them and all the military standards which they had captured, thus triumphing for the third time he entered the city and was named a second Romulus, as if he himself was the founder of his country.
In the three hundred and sixty-fifth year from the founding of the city, the first after it was captured, the political offices were changed, and instead of two consuls, military tribunes with consular power were elected...But the office of the military tribunes did not last long, for after a while no one was pleased with them and for four years in the city there was such confusion that there were no office holders. However, the military tribunes again took office with consular power and lasted for three years. Consuls were elected again.
The debt to Eutropius is clear enough from Cassiodorus' language. More important
for our purposes, though, is that Cassiodorus must have discovered in this passage from
Eutropius that the military tribunate which followed Camillus' dictatorship began in the
365th year from the founding of the city. Sanders suggested that Cassiodorus counted the
years he had, and came up with 325. He had to include forty more years somewhere, and
the rule of the decemviri seemed to him the logical place to put the forty years.125
126 Sanders 1903, 10 was the first to make this argument and he is followed on the whole by Schmidt (209-212), though they both make more of the problem than need be. Sanders insists that Cassiodorus knew from Eutropius that the number of years from the founding of the city to the consulships of Jovian and Varronianus (364) was 1117 years and that, with the added years to 519 (154 with the consulships of 297 excised, as Sanders wants), he got the number 1271. Subtracting the 240 years of regal rule, he came up with 1031 years of consuls. The difficulty, as Schmidt points out (212) is that Cassiodorus must have understood Eutropius to mean that the consulships of 364 encompassed the 1117th year. This is absurd, since Eutropius clearly states that they mark the 1118th year. In any case,
129
Sanders' explanation for the forty years is no doubt correct, but the difficulty with
it is that Eutropius is reasonably clear that the decemvirate at this point lasted only two
years.127 Either Cassiodorus did not read Eutropius on the decemviri - not impossible, but
difficult to imagine, since it comes only one Teubner page before Eutropius' discussion of
Camillus, - or he found the forty years of decemviral rule in his source for the consular
list, an epitome of Livy. Any or all of the above are possible.128
In any case, it is only with the restoration of the consuls of 421 BCE that we can
account for the additional forty years of decemviral rule, since without them Cassiodorus
would have had to make the decemviral rule one of forty-one years, since there would be
only 324 years between the foundation and his date for Camillus without these consuls.
There remains the difficulty of the seventeen years of military tribunes recorded
by Cassiodorus. Where does the number come from? That Cassiodorus, who otherwise
uses only the Livian epitome for the Republican period, should turn to Eutropius at this
point only points to a serious lack of information in his primary source which he
by my count, the year 364 would have been Cassiodorus' 1116th year. There is no evidence that he followed Eutropius in this matter, and the attempt to make the figures fit is doomed to failure. In addition, Sanders' explanation provides the simplest solution: Cassiodorus did not need to have any information about what his numbers ought to have been; he could work out the length of the decemvirate with Eutropius' numbers alone.
127 Eutropius 1.18.1-2: "Anno trecentesimo et altera ab urbe condita imperium consulare cessavit et pro duobus consulibus decern facti sunt, qui summam potestatem haberent, decemviri nominati. sed, cum primo anno bene egissent, secundo unus ex his...filiam virginem corrumpere voluit; quam pater occidit, ne stuprum a decemviro sustineret, et regressus ad milites movit tumultum. sublata est decemviris potestas ipsique damnati sunt'V'In the three hundred and second year after the founding of the city consular rule ceased and, instead of two consuls, ten men were elected who had the highest authority, named decemviri. But, though they ruled well in the first year, in the second year, on of them...wished to rape a virgin daughter. Her father killed her lest she suffer shame from the decemvir, and having gone back to his soldiers he began an uprising. Power was taken away from the decemviri and they themselves were condemned."
128 As I will demonstrate below, Cassiodorus made haphazard use of Eutropius, sometimes using him to correct the lengths of imperial reigns, and sometimes not, so it is not impossible that he only consulted Eutropius when he found something he could not explain in his main source. If this is so, though, it will not explain why he did not consult Eutropius in the matter of the decemvirate.
130
recognized. Jerome was unhelpful, and Eutropius was, as in the imperial portion of the
chronicle, his third choice. The lack of information in his primary source had to do with
the years of military tribunes and anarchy which followed Camillus' dictatorship. His
source, the Livian epitome, gave him only the number of years of rule without consuls,
which in Livy is twenty four.129 Unsatisfied for some reason with this figure, he
discovered from Eutropius that there were four years of anarchy and then three more
years of military tribunes. Subtraction left him with seventeen years for the initial period
of tribunician rule.130
Both Mommsen and Sanders wished to restore the consulships of 66/65, 193 and
269 BC. none of which appears in our manuscripts. Cuspinianus has all three, but he has
used other means and sources to correct the manuscripts he had. He notes that the first,
66/65, is contradicted by his other sources. He does not explicitly say he is correcting
Cassiodorus, but adds a spurious pair of consuls for the year 65. Cuspinianus includes the
consuls of 193, L. Cornelius and Q. Minucius, but, as Mommsen noted, Cuspinianus
actually cites Livy, whose work survives for this period, when he includes them, so he
likely got them from there.131 Cuspinianus also has the consuls of 269, Q. Ogulnius and
C. Fabius,132 but he cites Eutropius, who has them, thus demonstrating that they were in
the Livian epitomes, and, in turn, almost certainly in Livy.133 None of these consular pairs
129 Livy, however, has a different combination of numbers: 15, 4 and 5, rather than 17, 4 and 3. 130 This calculation is suggested by Schmidt 1969, 211-212, who also notes the possibility that
Cassiodorus believed, from calculation from Eutropius presumably, that the Republic lasted 462 years. Schmidt, however, accepts Mommsen's restoration of the consuls of 485 and 688/89. In any case, it is unlikely that Cassiodorus would have made such a calculation, since he does not follow Eutropius' numbers anywhere else in the chronicle.
131 Mommsen 1894, 129. Cuspinianus, 236. Cuspinianus mentions Livy frequently through these years and clearly had his copy of Livy's fourth decade open beside him when he covered these years in Cassiodorus.
132 Although Mommsen 1894, 127 in his apparatus, says he does not. 133 They appear in Eutropius, 2.16.
necessarily dropped out after Cassiodorus composed his chronicle. They could just as
easily have been omitted at any point during the epitomization of Livy, Cassiodorus'
source for the Republican consuls, or during the transmission of that lost document. The
epitome of Livy which Cassiodorus used was a very spare document, a consular list with
a few historical notes, and it is easy to see how a consular pair could drop out even before
the document came into Cassiodorus' hands.
It is possible, then, to reconcile the number of years in Cassiodorus' supputatio
with the number of years which can be counted by hand in the Chronica itself, but only
by restoring four consular pairs to the list. Still, we can also see the care that Cassiodorus
showed in constructing his time-line. He evidently counted the years by hand since he
appears to have deliberately displaced the one thousandth anniversary of the city from
where he found it in his source. Not only his preface, but also the list of sources at the
end of the work, which omit the sources for his historical notes, show clearly that he
regarded accurate chronology as the most important part of his work.
The preface, however, states very clearly that the focus of his work was to restore
trustworthiness to the fasti. In the sections which follow I will treat each of his sources
for his consular list, a Livian consularia134 and the Cursus paschalis of Victorius of
Aquitaine, individually. Each source gives rise to its own set of questions, but
Cassiodorus' use of them can shed considerable light on the history of the two sources,
one of which, the Livian consularia, is lost, the other of which is extant in several forms.
134 I have named this chapter "the Livian Consularia" because, as I will demonstrate, the epitome which Cassiodorus used as his source for consuls to 28 CE was at its heart a consular list with few historical notes.
The Fasti
From the Republic and well into the sixth century CE the Roman world named
their years after the two consuls for each year. This system of dating, while fine for those
who were able to "name the year," was terribly impractical for all sorts of reasons. Chief
among them was that in order to know how long ago something happened, one needed
either to memorize the list back in time, or have a list to hand of the consuls for the
previous years.
In the early empire, these lists were maintained publicly and could be found
inscribed on stone panels in fora in a variety of places.135 The inscribed fasti tail off in the
middle of the third century, and were replaced by manuscript lists of which we have
many examples from antiquity in both Greek and Latin. The documents had a practical
value, and were no doubt something that many people had: lawyers, money-lenders,
bureaucrats, church functionaries would all have had reason to use them in their day-to
day business. They also served as the raw material for history, since many of these lists
also had historical details, particularly relating to the emperors and their activities.
The fasti were "living" documents. They were anonymous and were frequently
updated, corrected, re-copied and circulated. In the late empire, when the names of the
consuls for each year were not always known early in the year - and sometimes not even
until the next year or not at all - the lists were regularly altered as bits of information
became known. However, because these texts were sub-literary, copyists were not always
as careful as they would be if they had been copying a literary work with an author's
name attached to it. Names were added; names were reversed; names were changed.
135 The Fasti Capitolini and the Fasti Ostienses (Degrassi, 1947) are the best examples.
133
"Corrections" were made which might or might not have been correct. In the pages that
follow, I will investigate some of this "raw material" which Cassiodorus used in
constructing his consular list.
In the sections which follow I will 1) investigate the nature of Cassiodorus' source
for his Republican consuls, now lost, 2) discuss the reasons for the differences between
his consular list and that of Victorius of Aquitaine, his source for the consuls between 29
CE and 457, 3) compare his list with surviving lists from the last half of the fifth and the
first quarter of the sixth century, and 4) briefly discuss the extension to Cassiodorus'
consular list which appears at the end of both manuscripts and runs all the way to 559.
These are four rather different tasks, but all require looking at the consular lists in the
same way, and discussing characteristics peculiar to the manuscript consular list. Not
unlike the study of epigraphy, then, my discussion will sometimes be very technical.
Consular lists of the same period, even one "copied" from another, can be quite
different from each other. Since they are not literary documents, the standards used to
copy, correct, and update them are different from those we see with literary texts, which
preserve the integrity impressed on them by the authorial hand. Since the consular list has
no author, only raw historical detail, the only thing holding it together is historical
integrity, and what that means will vary from individual to individual. Because copyists
felt at liberty to alter and correct consular lists, even different manuscripts of the same list
by the same author, like those of Prosper and Victorius, can vary the one from the other.
An entry of a name in a consular list will include the name itself, but can also
include an iteration (if that person had been consul more than once), and any of several
abbreviations which, in late antiquity, typically identified a person's status ("aug" for
"Augustus" or "vc" for "vir clarissimus"), but might also be used to distinguish one
person from another (e.g. "iun" for "iunior").
The name of the consul and how it appeared differed between the Republic and
the empire. Republican consuls typically were identified by praenomen and nomen
gentilicium, thus: "C. Iulio." Sometimes, however, the list gives the praenomen and
cognomen, thus: "C. Caesare." And sometimes all three names were used: "C. Iulio
Caesare." Under the empire, the written lists normally listed only the cognomen, thus:
"Vero et Ambiguo." Each year there was a consul prior, that is, under the Republic the
name who received the most votes. Under the empire there were fairly clear-cut rules
about who was consul prior, outlined by the editors of CLRE: "(1) Augusti and Caesars
took precedence over all subjects; (2) Augusti took precedence over Caesars and senior
over junior Augusti; between subjects (3) former consuls (suffect consulate not counting)
took precedence; otherwise (4) the senior emperor would decide whose name would be
entered first in the fasti."136 After the division of the empire in 411, however, western lists
and inscriptions record the western consul first, and eastern the eastern first no matter
who was consul prior, unless one was the emperor.I37
Occasionally a pair of names a pair of names is switched from the order one
would normally expect (depending on the geographical location, time period, and/or
archetypal document). This happens comparatively rarely, but often enough to be
considered an interesting and noteworthy phenomenon to those comparing one or more
136 CLRE,p.22. 137 CLRE, p. 22.
135
lists. Furthermore, we will see several instances where names were evidently carelessly
copied - at much higher rate of mistakes than we would see in a literary history. These
mistakes are generally confusions of similarly spelled names (Constantius / Constans /
Constantinus), but also of less similar names (Marcellus / Mamercus). Unfamiliar names,
especially non-Latin names in the late empire, were a regular source of difficulty to
copyists and can appear with very different spellings (Asporacius / Sporacius;
Dagalaifus / Gadalaifus).
The iterations are the numerals which normally would appear after a consul's
name if he had been consul more than one time. Recording iterations had been normal in
the inscribed lists where, for instance, the consulship of Tiberius and Germanicus in 18 CE
might be recorded as "Ti. Caesar Augustus III Germanicus T. Aug. f. Caesar II." For
those copying manuscript fasti, however, iterations were a difficulty. First, they were not
always considered necessary, and so they were frequently omitted. Second, the chance of
errors creeping in is extremely high, as it is wherever Roman numerals are copied in any
manuscript. Third, the similarity of names among office holders meant that "corrections"
were often made to the lists, and people who were not multiple office holders were
sometimes given iterations. Cassiodorus has some iterations in his work, but they are not
uniformly recorded every time they should be recorded, and they are frequently incorrect.
The abbreviations used after the consular names in the manuscript lists appear to
have been taken over from the inscribed lists. Typically they only appear in imperial
consuls, where the most common are "aug," the designation for the Augustus when he
was consul, and "vc," "vir clarissimus." In the late imperial lists the designation "vc" can
be used of anyone who was consul, except for the emperor. Oddly, it typically only
appears in the manuscript lists after a single name. The plural (common in inscriptions)
"vvcc" occurs only very rarely, and usually only in the fifth and sixth centuries. I will
treat other abbreviations as they appear in each discussion.
Finally, in years when either there were no consuls designated for the year, or
when the names of the consuls were not known, the year was designated "pc," "post
consulatum," with the name or names of the previous year's consuls in the genitive, thus:
pc Amantii et Albini, that is "after the consulship of Amantius and Albinus." As we will
see, post-consular years show considerable variety and more frequency towards the sixth
century when the names of the consuls were not as well known as in earlier centuries.138
The Livian Consularia
Despite its shortcomings, Cassiodorus' list of Republican consuls is one of the
best and most complete lists to have survived from antiquity. Copied from an epitome of
Livy and Aufidius Bassus, there are only seven missing consular pairs.139 As we saw
above, either Cassiodorus' source did not treat either the decemviri or the military
tribunates in a clear way or Cassiodorus himself had no idea how often there were no
consuls, since Cassiodorus records the two years of the decemviri (451-450 BCE) as a
period of forty years and only notes the last lengthy rule by military tribunes and the
anarchy between 391 and 367 BCE, despite the considerable number of earlier years of
military tribunates (444, 438, 433-432, 426-424, 422, 420-414 and 408-394 BCE).
138 The editors of CLRE discuss abbreviations and points of nomenclature only with reference to inscriptions (36-40, 63-66), but not with reference to the manuscript lists, which is unfortunate.
139 Missing are the consuls for 507, 490, 489, 451, 421, 193 and the second consul of 66 combined with the first of 65. The consuls for 507, 490 and 489 were not in Livy, so they were likely not in Cassiodorus' source. As I discussed above, pp. 126ff, I have restored the consuls of 421 only.
137
The consular names in the Chronica for the most part appear in the typical
Republican format, with a praenomen and a single name following it: usually the
gentilicium, but sometimes the cognomen, and more rarely both gentilicium and
cognomen. Curiously, the years from 509 to 218 show a very high proportion of consular
pairs in which the praenomen and gentilicium are recorded for both consuls, thus "L
Valerius et M Horatius": 195 out of 225 pairs.140 From 217 BCE to 29 CE, however, that
proportion drops considerably, with much more variation in which name or names are
recorded: only 81 out of 244 pairs appear in the form praenomen gentilicium +
praenomen gentilicium, and all the other possible variations are represented, with the
praenomen present in all cases.141 If there is a reason for this change, I have not been able
to determine what it is. As we will see below, there is reason to think that the epitomator
of Livy recorded the "tria nomina" in the original list where he could, but successive
copyists cut the names back without regularity, sometimes dropping one name,
sometimes the other, and sometimes neither.
To get a better understanding of why Cassiodorus' list takes the form it does, we
must go back to his sources. In what follows I will first compare Cassiodorus' list to the
surviving names in Livy and then to the two surviving witnesses to the consularia which
Cassiodorus used, the Liber Prodigiorum of Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus
140 Of 225 consular pairs between 509 and 218, 195 appear as gentilicium + gentilicium, sixteen as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium, six as cognomen + gentilicium, four as gentilicium + gentilicium cognomen, three as gentilicium + cognomen and one as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium cognomen.
141 Of 244 consular pairs between 217 BCE and 29 CE, eighty-one appear as gentilicium + gentilicium, eighteen as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium, fifty-five as cognomen + gentilicium, twelve as gentilicium + gentilicium cognomen, twenty-one 1 as gentilicium + cognomen, three as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium cognomen, thirty-nine as cognomen + cognomen, nine as gentilicium cognomen + cognomen, five as cognomen + gentilicium cognomen and one as gentilicium + two cognomina. These last four categories are not represented in the group from 509 to 218.
138
668. What will emerge is not only a clearer picture of Cassiodorus' immediate source, but
also a clearer picture of a portion of the history of the Livian epitome.
As he said in his introduction, Cassiodorus was motivated by a desire to correct
the consular fasti. He states in his postscript that Livy was one of his sources, and we
should expect such a choice for a source. Cassiodorus' production of and search for
authoritative texts is one of the underpinnings of much of his scholarly effort.142 He
needed, therefore, to choose a source for his Republican consuls which inspired
confidence through its authority. Neither of the other two manuscript Latin lists of
Republican consuls which have survived from antiquity (the Descriptio Consilium, called
the Consularia Constantinopolitana by Mommsen, and the list in the Codex-Calendar of
354) provides information about its source, though it is clear that the two are related to
the Fasti Capitolini or their source.143 Though it is pure speculation to suggest, it is at
least possible that Cassiodorus, on comparing the Livian with the other lists, chose the
one with a famous name attached to it.
Cassiodorus, however, did not copy his consuls directly from the full text of Livy,
which was no doubt hard to come by in the sixth century, but from an epitome.
Mommsen was the first to recognize that the full text of Livy cannot have been
Cassiodorus' source - the mistakes in historical detail alone,144 as well as Cassiodorus'
recourse to Eutropius for historical material on the military tribunes and anarchy,
preclude the possibility. Mommsen only gave a very brief description of the document
142 The aim of the first book of the Institutiones reflects this desire not only for authoritative texts, but for a full range of material.
143 Editions by Burgess 1993 and Mommsen 1894. 144 In 506 Livy has an extra year of consuls which Cassiodorus does not have, and in 315 Livy does not
know the consuls, but Cassiodorus has them.
139
that Cassiodorus used in constructing his list of consuls: "...einen kurz das Thatsachliche
Jahr fur Jahr, unter Voranstellung der Consulnamen im Ablativ, zusammenfassenden
Abriss" / "a brief summary, bringing together factual material year by year under the
headings of consular names in the ablative." As proof of his assertion Mommsen further
points to evidence that Cassiodorus had a work with consuls listed in the ablative, since
he uses the name Labeon rather than Labeo and has Paeto for Paetus; to the similarities of
language between Cassiodorus and Obsequens, which do not derive from Livy and
therefore point to an intermediate source; and to the error of assigning four years to the
anarchy of 375-71, to which Livy assigns five years.145
Cassiodorus and Livy
If we compare Livy's surviving list with Cassiodorus', we can then draw some
conclusions about the Livian epitome by working back from Cassiodorus. The consular
list is the best point of comparison between the two works not only because the consular
names comprise the bulk of the Republican period in Cassiodorus' Chronica, but also
because we can expect a high degree of accuracy in their transmission from the full text
of Livy to the epitome to Cassiodorus: apart from the omission of the nomen or the
cognomen for reasons of space, there is little room for deliberate alteration of names, and
still less reason for it. I discuss the historical entries in chapter four, below.146
We have Livy's consuls from his surviving books for the years 509-292 and 219-
166, and there are 203 entries for consular pairs which are common to both authors. The
145 Mommsen 1861,552. 146 Pp. 215ff.
natural place to look in Livy for such a list is in the record of the consular elections,
typically recorded in Livy's narrative at the end of the year in which the consuls were
elected.147 There is very close agreement between Cassiodorus' list of consuls and Livy's
as one would expect. Most of the variations that do exist between Cassiodorus and Livy
are impossible to attribute exclusively either to our author or his source, but there is
additional accurate material which is not in Livy, but must have been in Cassiodorus'
source, introduced either by the epitomator himself or by someone working between the
production of the epitome and the list which Cassiodorus had. It seems most economical
to attribute this material to the epitomator himself, and I believe we can find here
evidence which sketches a picture of the epitomator's work. This material suggests that
the epitomator was a moderately sophisticated and careful reader of Livy who took pains
to produce a consular list with accurate praenomina, gentilicia and cognomina and at least
some consular iterations, and who hunted down variants between Livy's fasti and the
more generally accepted fasti of the Republican consuls as it was accepted during the
empire. There is further evidence that someone, possibly Cassiodorus himself, but more
likely an earlier librarius, made changes to the copy of the epitome of Livy which he had.
There are, as one might expect in a document of this kind, many differences
between the readings of the Livian manuscripts - even those that are very old - and those
of Cassiodorus. There are also many orthographical variants and many minor
omissions.148 Whether these variants are to be attributed to the text of Livy, the
epitomator, the text of the epitome, Cassiodorus himself, the tradition of the manuscript
147 But as we will see, the epitomator often had to hunt through the text of Livy for fuller information about the consuls names where the actual report of their election gives only a partial name.
148 Omissions: Cassiodorus omits the praenomina in 508, 504, and 211. M. Cornelius, consul for 436 is omitted by Cassiodorus.
141
of the Chronica or a combination of them all is as a rule impossible to tell. As a result, I
will not discuss mistakes and easily explained orthographical variants of the sort one
would find in any group of related manuscripts: these include minor differences in
gentilicia and cognomina,149 the great many differences among praenomina,150 and the
reversal of names in a consular pair.151 These could all be problems of transmission and as
a result cannot tell us anything certain about the epitomator or the transmission of the
epitome.
I will discuss two specific types of differences between Cassiodorus' Chronica
and Livy which are noteworthy: a) differences in consular iterations (i.e., second, third,
fourth consulship etc. of a particular man), and b) additions of details by Cassiodorus'
149 487: "Siccius" for "Sicinus," 455: "Nomilius" for "Romilius," 453: "Quintius" for "Quinctilius," 445: "Ginutius" and "Curiacius" for "Genucius" and "Curtius" (here, the Livian name "Curtius" has many variants among the MSS, so the error need not be Cassiodorus' or even his immediate source's), 439: "Manlius" for "Menenius," 437 and 429: "Servius" for "Sergius," 330: "Plaustius" for "Plautius," 323: "Aelius" for "Aemilius" (here, Livy notes that some sources name him "Aulius," 8.37.2-3), 166: "Mamercus" for "Marcellus." I have left out the smaller variations and common copyists errors, like 429: "Hostus" for "Hostius," 428: "Quintius" for "Quinctius," and 302: "Libius" for "Livius." There are also a few places where modern editions of Livy reject the evidence of the MSS. For 360, for example, most Livian MSS have "Poetilius," which is what Cassiodorus also has, whereas the correct spelling of the name is "Poetelius." But these differences could easily have come about independently.
150 There are 23 instances where Cassiodorus has a different praenomen from Livy. 499: "L" for "C Vetusius," 495: "T" for "P Servilius," 460: "P" for "C Claudius," 458: "L" for "C Nautius," 452: "T" for "C Menenius," 448: "L" for "Sp Herminius," 445: "T" for "C Curtius," 443: "P" for "T Quinctius," 427: "P" for "C Servilius," 413: "M" for "A Cornelius," 363: "C" for "Cn Genucio" (although, in this case, the Livian mss read C, but have been emended through reference to Diodorus, who reads "Cn"), 357: "L" for "C Marcius," 356: "Q" for "M Fabius," 350: "P" for "L Scipio," 346: "P" for "C Poetelius," 330: "C" for "L Plautius," 328: "C" for "P Plautius," 320: "Q Papirius" and "L Publilius" for "L Papirius" and "Q Publilius," 302: "L" for "M Aemilius," 213: "P" for "Q Fabius," 204: "T" for "P Sempronius," 201: "C" for "P Aelius," 178: "Cn" for "A Manlius," 169: "L" for "Q Marcius." A good example of how praenomina can be confused is in the manuscript tradition of the Chronica itself, where numerous praenomina have been displaced due to the method the copyist of the archetype used. See above, pp. 33ff..
151 I will, however, discuss reversals of consular pairs below, when comparing Cassiodorus to Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus 668. 455: Cass, "C Veturius et T Nomilius" Livy, "T Romilio C Veturio," 358: Cass., "C Plautius et C Fabius" Livy, "C Fabius et C Plautius," 320: Cass., "Q Papirius et L Publilius" Livy, "Q Publilium Philonem et L Papirium Cursorem," 209: Cass. "Q Fabius V et Q Fulvius Flaccus IIII," Livy, "Q Fulvium et Q. Fabium," 182: Cass., "L Paulus et Cn Baebius" Livy, "Cn Baebium Tamphilum etL Aemilium Paullum," 177: Cass., "T Sempronius et C Claudius" Livy, "C Claudius Pulcher Ti Sempronius Gracchus."
source which are not in Livy.
Consular Iterations
Iterations are part of the consular name. As will be seen, Cassiodorus' work
contains some evidence that the Livian consularia he used was once a much fuller
document than the one we have now, probably containing the full "tria nomina" for all
the consuls. Thus, investigating the iterations is part of investigating the larger issue of
how the names were originally extracted from Livy.
In investigating the iterations of consulships in Cassiodorus, we can divide the
instances of comparison into four groups: a) where Livy records the number, but
Cassiodorus does not, b) where Livy and Cassiodorus agree, c) where both Livy and
Cassiodorus have a number, but disagree, and d) where Cassiodorus has a number, but
Livy does not. Of the 203 consular pairs common to both authors, there are twenty-six
instances where Livy records a consular iteration and Cassiodorus does not.152 This is by
far the largest group, but there is no way of telling whether the epitomator noted all of
them or not. As I will demonstrate, he probably noted some. There are seven instances
where Livy and Cassiodorus have numbers and agree;153 there are two instances where
Livy and Cassiodorus have numbers but disagree;154 finally, there are seven occasions
where Cassiodorus records a consular iteration while Livy does not.155 Clearly, the last
two groups are the most interesting.
The presence of nine instances where Cassiodorus has material either not in Livy
152 The years 459, 443, 437, 435, 363, 356, 355, 354, 353, 348, 346, 344, 343, 341, 340, 332, 330, 327, 325, 320, 313, 311, 215, 214, 213 and 169.
153 The years 508, 504, 446, 429, 212 and 168. 154 The years 439 and 434. 155 The years 505, 468, 467, 465, 431, 326 and 209.
(505, 468, 467, 465, 431, 326 and 209) or which disagrees with Livy (439 and 434)
suggests the work of the epitomator, of a librarius, or of Cassiodorus himself.
Furthermore, there are nine consular pairs which show iterations in both Cassiodorus and
Livy, while Cassiodorus has iterations for seven where Livy has none. If a copyist or
Cassiodorus had added the numbers himself, we would expect that they would
correspond with Livy in some places and not in others, which is, in fact, the case. The
possibility therefore suggests itself that all such numbers in Cassiodorus' list were
inserted after the original list was extracted from Livy. For this to be true, however, it
must have been possible for a copyist or Cassiodorus to insert the iterations through
recourse to the list itself, that is, simply through numbering recurring names in the
consular list. In what follows, I will demonstrate that this scenario is possible in most
cases, and may have occurred by mistake, even though Cassiodorus agrees with Livy.156
Below is a table of the years for which Cassiodorus includes a consular iteration,
including the years for which we have no corresponding text of Livy. The Livian
passages for years for which we have a corresponding text are in the right-hand column.
The years in which both Livy and Cassiodorus have an iteration and agree are marked
with an asterisk; the years in which both have an iteration and disagree are marked with
an obelus.
Cassiodorus Livy
*508 Valerius II et Titus Lucretius P Valerius iterum TLucretius
505 Valerius III et P Postumius M Valerius P Postumius
156 The cases of the consuls of 326 and 82 (discussed below, pp. 147-148 and 149) indicate that we can discount the possibility that a copyist of Cassiodorus' work inserted the iterations rather than his source.
*504 Valerius HII et Titus Lucretius II
468 T Quintius II et Q Servilius
467 TAemilius II et Q Fabius
465 Q Fabius II et T Quintius III
*446 T Quintius HII et Agrippa Furius
|439 T Quintius V et Agrip Manlius
f435 C Iulius et L Verginius
f 434 C Iulius II et L Verginius II
431 T Quintius VI et Cn Iulius
*429 L Servius II et Hostus Lucretius
326 C Poetelius III et L Papirius
224 T Marcius et Q Fulvius II
* 212 Q Fulvius Flaccus III et App Claudius
209 Q Fabius VetQ Fulvius Flaccus HII
* 194 P Scipio II et T Sempronius
* 168 L Paulus II et C Licinius
104 C Marius II et C Fl Fimbria
103 C Marius III et LA urelius Orestes
102 C Marius HII et L Luctatius
101 C Marius Vet MAquilius
100 C Marius VI et L Valerius Flaccus
86 L Cinna II et C Marius VII
85 L Cinna III et Cn Papirius
84 L Cinna IIII et Cn Papirius II
P Valerius quartum TLucretius iterum (2.16.2)
T Quinctius Q Servilius (2.64.1)
TAemilius et Q Fabius (3.1.1)
Q Fabio et TQuinctio (3.2.2)
T Quinctius Capitolinus quartum et Agrippa Furius (3.66.1)
sextum...TQuinctius Capitolinus...Agrippa Menenius (4.13.6)
C Iulio iterum et L Verginio (4.21.6)
Iulium tertium, Verginium iterum (4.23.1-2)
T Quinctius...et Cn Iulius Mento (4.26.2)
L Sergius Fidenas iterum Hostius Lucretius (4.30.4)
C Poetelium L Poetelium Mugillanum (8.23.17)
Quintus Fulvius Flaccus tertium et Ap Claudius (25.3.1)
Q Fulvium et Q Fabium (27.6.3)
P Cornelium Scipionem Africanum iterum et T Sempronium Longum (34.42.3)
LAemilius Paulus iterum...et C Licinius Crassus (44.17.4)
145
82 Cn Carbo III et C Marius
48 C Iulius Caesar II et P Servilius
46 C Iulius Caesar III et M Lepidus
45 C Iulius Caesar IIII et Fabius Maximus
44 CIulius Caesar Vet MAntonius
41 P Servilius IletLA ntonius
31 C Caesar II et M Messala
30 C Caesar III et M Crassus
29 C Caesar IIII et Sex Apuleius
28 C Caesar V et MAgrippa II
27 C Caesar VI et MAgrippa HI
26 C Augustus Caesar VII et TStatilius
25 C Augustus Caesar VIII et MSilanus
24 C Augustus Caesar Villi et C Norbanus
23 C A ugustus Caesar XetCn Piso
There are forty-one years with consular iterations, but the number of different
men who are identified as having multiple consulships is quite limited: L. Valerius, T.
Lucretius, T. Aemilius, Q. Fabius, L. Verginius, T. Quintius, L. Servius, C. Poetelius, Q.
Fabius, Q. Fulvius Flaccus, P. Scipio, L. Paullus, C. Marius, L. Cinna, Cn. Papirius
Carbo, C. Julius Caesar, P. Servilius, M. Agrippa, and Augustus - nineteen in all. The
years with iterations are not evenly distributed, though. Of the forty-one, eleven are in the
first eighty years of the Republic and twenty-three are from the last hundred years of the
Republic. The bulk of these final twenty-three years are the consulships of Marius, Cinna,
Caesar and Augustus - names bound to attract attention and easy to number since they
come in rapid succession. The large percentage of iterations in the early years, however,
suggests either that the epitomator began copying iterations and then stopped, that a
copyist began transcribing iterations, but then stopped, or, as I will argue, that someone
began to try to include iterations in a list where there were none, or very few, but gave up
after the first hundred years or so. The practice of "correcting" the consular iterations in
manuscript lists was very common.157
There are several individual cases which deserve comment, particularly those
where the numbers are different from those which appear in Livy. These cases, with their
concomitant errors, tend to support the suggestion that the numbers were inserted after
the list was extracted from Livy since the numbers themselves could not have been
copied from Livy.
The iterations for the years 439 and 431 must be treated together since they
contain errors which are related. The situation is complicated, but explicable. In the year
439, Cassiodorus give the consuls as "T. Quintius V et Agrip. Manlius," while Livy reads
"sextum...T. Quinctius Capitolinus...Agrippa Menenius" (4.13.6). Livy is correct.
Capitolinus had been consul in 471, 468, 465, 446 and 443. Cassiodorus or his source
was led astray by an incorrect praenomen in 443, where Cassiodorus' text now has as "P.
Quintius" rather than "T. Quintius." It would seem that the different praenomen resulted
in the disassociation of the consular name of 443 from those of 471, 468, 465, 446, and
439. If we assume that the iterations were inserted before Cassiodorus compiled his
chronicle, the incorrect letter for the praenomen must be a very old error indeed, going
back at least to Cassiodorus' immediate source and maybe farther.158
157 For a good example, see Burgess 2000, pp. 270-271 and 288. 158 It is not impossible that the iterations were originally correct, and there followed a change in
praenomen, and then a hypercorrection to remove his iteration and the correction of the iteration in
One of the consuls of 431, also a T. Quintius, is incorrectly ascribed a sixth
consulship on the assumption that he was the same individual as the T. Quintius in 439
who had a fifth iteration. He is, however, different: T. Quinctius Cincinnatus rather than
T. Quinctius Capitolinus.159 With the same name occurring only eight years apart (439
and 431), it is an understandable mistake to treat the second name as the same person as
the first and the incorrect iteration is readily explained by the insertion of the iteration
into the list simply on the basis of the similarity and proximity of the names.
In 434, Cassiodorus has "C. Iulius II et L. Verginius II," whereas C. Iulius was in
fact serving as consul for the third time, having been consul in 447 and 435: Iulius's first
consulship was in 447, where he is consul posterior, and both Iulius and Verginius were
consuls in 435. It seems clear that a copyist or reader, seeing the same names in two
consecutive years, simply inserted iterations when they appeared the second time,
unaware of Iulius' first appearance in 447, twelve years earlier.
In 326, Cassiodorus' entry is "C. Poetelius III et L. Papirius." The iteration is
correct. Livy reads "C. Poetelium L. Papirium Mugillanum" (8.23.17), so the number
does not come from there. Poetelius was consul in 346 and 360.160 If we read back up
Cassiodorus' list of consuls we find "P. Poetilius" in the 346 slot, and "C. Poetilius" in
360. We have already seen the praenomina copied incorrectly. The iteration for 326
cannot have come from Livy, and must have been inserted before the name in 346
suffered a change in its praenomen. In this case, it is possible that before the praenomen
was changed, the iteration "II" was in place, but was omitted by a copyist who saw no
439. This might then lead to the sixth iteration being bumped to 431. 159 Broughton 1952, pp. 56, 63. 160 Broughton, p. 146.
prior consulship for "P. Poetilius." Such a process would have taken several steps, of
course: the insertion of the iteration, the change of the praenomen, and the omission of
the iteration. There is no telling where this process of miscopying and omission took
place, before Cassiodorus used the Livian list, while Cassiodorus compiled his Chronica,
or during the copying of Cassiodorus' Chronica subsequent to its composition, but it
remains a possibility that at some stage in the life of Cassiodorus' source, the iterations
for C. Poetilius were added.
The final two examples of iterations in Cassiodorus which are not in Livy (the
consuls of 209 and 82) pose similar problems and can be solved in similar ways. The
consuls for the year 209 in Cassiodorus are "Q. Fabius V et Q. Fulvius Flaccus IIII." The
corresponding entry in Livy has no numbers ("Q. Fulvium et Q. Fabium," 27.6.3), so the
iteration cannot have come from there. Yet here a different sort of problem arises which is
not like those above. None of Fabius' other consulships is numbered in Cassiodorus, but
he is not always identified the same way. In 233, 228 and 215, he is named "Q.
Maximus" and in 214, he is named "Q. Fabius Maximus." Without the full name "Q.
Fabius Maximus," no copyist or epitomator would have been able to insert iterations
since he would have no reason for thinking that the "Q. Maximus" of 233 was the same
man as the "Q. Fabius" of 209, unless he knew his history very well indeed. There is no
telling why only the fifth consulship is numbered, while the others are not, but it is
reasonably certain that no mediaeval copyist could have put this iteration into the text. It
goes back either all the way to the epitomator, or at least as far back as a stage when the
list existed with fuller names than it does now.
149
In 82 Cassiodorus' list has "Cn. Carbo III et C. Marius." Cn. Papirius Carbo's
earlier consulships, in 84 and 85, are noted, but he is named "Cn. Papirius" in both earlier
years. He has an iteration for his second consulship in Cassiodorus, but since the name
"Carbo" does not appear in either of the earlier years, a copyist would be unable to
identify him as the same man, and so would not include an iteration for 82. Again, the
iteration goes back either to the epitomator himself, or to a stage when the list had fuller
names.161
Broadly speaking, then, there are four possible scenarios: 1) the original extractor
included the iterations and they fell away gradually in transmission, primarily through the
truncation of fuller names, 2) the original extractor included only some of the numbers, 3)
the original extractor included no numbers and they were added later, or 4) a combination
of the above in which the original extractor included some iterations, including two that
are not in Livy, they fell away in transmission, largely due to the truncating of names for
reasons of space, and another copyist attempted, at the beginning of the Republican
consular list, to put them back in, but stopped when the difficulties and pitfalls of the
process became apparent and too many.
Details in Cassiodorus' Source which are not in Livy
The second major set of differences between Cassiodorus and Livy is in the order
161 Further proof that the original epitome had fuller names than its descendants can be found, as we will see below, pp. 154ff., in a comparison of the consular lists of Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus 668. Though Cassiodorus, Obsequens and P. Oxy. 668 may agree as to the consuls for the year, they do not always have the same forms of the name, or the same order of names. Cassiodorus is the only one of the three to include consular iterations, which further suggests that they were added to the list which he had, after the originals had dropped out. The alteration and insertion of consular iterations is a process we see also in other late antique lists, and is described in detail by Burgess 2000, esp. 270ff.
150
of the names of the consular pairs. Of the 203 pairs of consuls common to Livy and
Cassiodorus, we find a different order of names from the way they appear in Livy just
seven times: 455, 428, 358, 320, 209, 182162 and 177,163 or 3.4% of the time.164 It is not
clear how or why these reversals occur, but it happens frequently in manuscripts and
inscriptions.
The second group of differences between Cassiodorus' and Livy's consular lists is
a disparate group comprising all the cases in which Cassiodorus includes material which
is not in Livy. This group of differences can be divided roughly into two categories:
names (praenomina, gentilicia and cognomina) which are not found in Livy at the record
of the elections but which are found elsewhere in Livy's text, and names which
Cassiodorus' source must have found outside of Livy. The whole group of differences
supports the idea that a careful epitomator compiled as good a consular list as possible,
attempting to find and include all three names wherever he could.
As I noted above,165 Cassiodorus' source tended to begin with the names as listed
in Livy's record of the elections. There are several occasions, however, where
Cassiodorus' source searched beyond the election record to find fuller names: 339, 319,
308, and 206.1 treat them individually in what follows.166 For the year 339, Livy records
162 The consuls of 182 are reversed in Cassiodorus, Obsequens and the papyrus, noted above as one of the errors which link the three documents.
163 Livy's epitomator followed Livy's record of elections, or the consuls' first appearance in his text, closely and to have written the names down in the order in which they appeared in Livy, regardless of who the consul prior was.
164 A comparison of the 23 pairs of consuls common to Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, shows just one reversal of names, in 143, or 4.3%. A comparison of the 63 consular pairs common to Cassiodorus and Obsequens, however, shows reversals of 4 pairs, in 154, 119, 75, and 54, or 6.3%. In the case of the consuls of 154, the praenomina are in the same order, but the cognomina are different: Cassiodorus has "L. Postumius et Q. Opimius," while Obsequens has "L. Opimio Quinto Posthumio."
165 P. 136. 166 I make the assumption that the Livian MSS are not corrupt at these points. This will clearly not always
be the case, since it is quite easy for a praenomen, for instance, to drop out of the textual tradition.
the consuls as "Ti. Aemilius Mamercinus, Publilius Philo" (8.12.4-5), while Cassiodorus
has "T. Aemilius et Q. Publilius," recording Publilius' praenomen where Livy does not.
The possibility is distinct that the praenomen has simply dropped out of Livy's text, but
Livy records Publilius' praenomen when he records his second consulship in 327 — "L.
Cornelio Lentulo, Q. Publilio Philone iterum (8.22.8) — so the epitomator could have
found the cognomen here and supplemented it in Publilius's first consulship.167 Livy's
names for the consuls of 319 are "Cursor Papirius...cum Q. Aulio Cerretano" (9.15.11).
Cassiodorus records Papirius' praenomen, Lucius: "L. Papirius et Q. Aulius." But Livy
supplies Papirius' praenomen at 8.29.9, 9.7.15, and 9.15.9 - easily accessible to the
epitomator. For 308 Livy records simply "Fabio...Decio" (9.41.1), while Cassiodorus
includes the praenomina "Q. Fabius et P. Decius." But Livy had no need to identify the
two consuls for that year any more carefully than he did because they had played major
roles in the years prior, Decius being consul in 312, and Fabius in 310. Fabius'
praenomen is given by Livy at 9.33.1, the record of the consular elections of 310. Decius'
name is actually given by Livy right before his election to the consulship for the second
time (9.40.21). In 206, Livy records the consuls elected as "L. Veturius Q. Caecilius"
(28.10.2), whereas Cassiodorus has "L. Veturius et Q. Caecilius Metellus." But several
paragraphs on in Livy from the record of the elections Caecilius' cognomen is found
(28.10.8). In the above four cases, assuming our text of Livy is accurate, the epitomator
did not find the full name as he would like it listed for the consular elections, but did find
Lacking evidence to the contrary, however, and relying on the sheer number of cases where Cassiodorus and Livy are different, I assume that what is preserved in the MSS of Livy is what the epitomator worked with.
167 This particular case could also be put rather with the cases of consular iterations above. A copyist, or Cassiodorus himself, noted the second consulship of the man, and supplemented his praenomen in the first.
152
it elsewhere in the text of Livy.
There are four years in which Cassiodorus has consular names or pairs of names
which are not in Livy: 430, 325, 207 and 315. In the year 430, Cassiodorus' text lists the
name "L. Iulius Iullus." The cognomen "Iullus" does not appear anywhere else for this
man, though it may well be correct.168 The presence of the name here, though, suggests
that the epitomator was using other information, or that the information was added to the
original list at some point.
In 325 Cassiodorus records the consuls as "L. Furius et D. Iunius," while Livy has
"L. Furio Camillo iterum Iunio Bruto Scaevae" (8.29.2). Livy nowhere records Brutus'
praenomen. Diodorus Siculus is the only other source to provide the praenomen. He gives
the full name as: AEKIOV Iouviov (18.2.1). Diodorus wrote too early to have used Livy
as a source. Either the epitomator, Cassiodorus or a copyist somewhere along the line
found and added the praenomen. But it is possible that the epitomator had access to
another consular list.
In 207 Cassiodorus records M. Livius' cognomen as "Salinator." The first time
that cognomen occurs in Livy is at 29.37.4, where Livy describes the origins of the name
"Salinator," which he places in the year 204, during Livius' censorship. The first consul in
Livy with that name is in 182. The addition is correct,169 since the censor of 204 is the
same man as the consul of 207, but according to Livy, he did not have that name when he
was consul. Someone, again, presumably the epitomator, knew that it was the same man,
and to make it clear who it was, he added the cognomen. The cognomen is not in
168 Broughton 1952 included it on the strength of its presence in Cassiodorus. There are certainly other Iulii Iulli attested. See RE ad loc.
169 See Broughton ad loc.
153
Cassiodorus for Livius' first consulship in 219, however, but it could have fallen out or
have been removed, or the epitomator did not realize it was the same man.
The most striking addition in Cassiodorus's fasti is the correct names of the
consuls for 315, "L. Papirius iun. et Q. Publilius," which Livy omits. Livy notes that the
new consuls came into office but does not name them (9.22.1), nor does he name them
anywhere else.170 The addition of the abbreviation "iun" to the name is anachronistic: the
use of the term "iunior" to imply "the younger" of two family members with the same
name or the second appearance of the same name in fasti does not come into the language
until late antiquity,171 and it occurs seven times in Cassiodorus' consular list, but not
before 474 CE. I believe it is an error, and the original reading was not "iun" but an
iteration, "IIII." Cuspinianus makes no mention of this, but his consuls read "L. Papyrius
IIII Q. Popilius II" because he followed Diodorus Siculus, whom he mentions at this
point.172 The supplement of the names of these consuls is almost certainly the work of the
careful epitomator, who, as we have seen, had access to another consular list and sought
out the names there when he noticed that they were lacking in Livy, but the term "iunior"
suggests an error made in late antiquity, when Livy's list was already old, and when the
term, being in common use, could have been mistakenly added.
The comparison of Cassiodorus' consuls with Livy's allows us see an epitomator
who was not satisfied merely with the names as given in Livy's record of elections. He
seems to have looked more carefully to find all three names (or more) where he could. He
supplemented his list of Livy's consuls in at least two places where his information was
170 Mommsen 1894, 126, incorrectly includes this reference to Livy, implying that the names are there. 171 CLRE 40-46 172 Cuspinianus, 180-181.
not as good as he would have liked: he found the praenomen of the consul of 325,
Decimus Brutus Scaeva somewhere else, and he gave the names of the consuls of 315,
Lucius Papirius et Quintus Publilius, though they were not in Livy. The evidence from
the iterations of consulships suggests that the epitomator included them as well, even
where Livy did not, but that they, too, fell away along with a gentilicium or a cognomen.
Some remain in place, but a copyist attempted to restore others, particularly those in the
early years of the republic.
Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and P. Oxyrhynchus 668
But we can say more about this particular epitome by comparing Cassiodorus' list
of consuls with the two surviving witnesses to the same, or similar, epitome: Julius
Obsequens' Liber Prodigiorum, a book of prodigies dated by consular year which covers
the years 190 to 11 BCE, and Oxyrhynchus papyrus 668, a fragmentary epitome of Livy
dated to the third century CE, which covers the years 190 to 179 BCE and 150 to 137
BCE.173 It was recognized by Mommsen and is universally agreed that Julius Obsequens
and Cassiodorus are closely related because of the striking similarities of language
between the two.174 The publication of the Oxyrhynchus epitome of Livy in 1904 made
up a trio of related texts.175 Reinhold, Kornemann, Sanders, Moore and Klotz all believed
that the three were related, but how they were so was a matter of some dispute.176
Reinhold, followed by Kornemann, believed that Eutropius, Obsequens,
173 For the texts of both Obsequens and P. Oxy. 668 I use Rossbach 1910. 174 See Mommsen 1894, where he notes the parallels with Obsequens in his edition of Cassiodorus, pp.
129-135, and Schmidt 1968. 175 Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. 1904. 176 Reinhold, G. 1898; Kornemann, E. 1904; Sanders, H.A. 1905 and 1904; Moore, C.H. 1904; Klotz, A.
1913 and 1936.
155
Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus epitome all derived from an extensive chronicle which
was compiled from a lost epitome of Livy. Sanders rejected the notion that Eutropius
belonged to the group and contested the existence of a chronicle which was the common
source for them all. He posited a second epitome, derived from an initial epitome and
claimed that it was the source for the three. Klotz was the first to posit two separate
Inhaltsverzeichnisse of Livy, one rhetorical, a collection of exempla, and the other
chronological, fasti with added historical notices. From these were derived two largely
discrete traditions.
In 1968, Peter Schmidt argued carefully and forcefully, largely following Sanders
and Klotz, that the epitome, of which Oxyrhynchus 668 is a fragment, was the direct
source for both Cassiodorus and Obsequens.177 This epitome, he suggested, was compiled
directly from the full text of Livy and not from an intervening epitome. It could therefore
not be a part of the tradition of the lost epitome (and its descendants) whose users are
represented by Eutropius, Orosius, Jerome.178 My discussion below supports Schmidt's
conclusion that Cassiodorus' source was compiled directly from the full text of Livy and
not from another epitome. However, I think that his conclusion - that Oxyrhynchus 668 is
a fragment of that very epitome - must accept a few qualifications.
Schmidt argues, successfully on the whole, that the Oxyrhynchus epitome was the
source for both Cassiodorus and Obsequens. His most convincing argument for this is
that, in the years in which Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus epitome and Cassiodorus and
the Oxyrhynchus epitome overlap, all the historical notices in Cassiodorus and
177 Schmidt, P. L. 1968. Bessone 1982 has argued against him on the subject. 178 Although I will contest Schmidt's thesis that the Oxyrhynchus Epitome is the source for Cassiodorus
and Obsequens, I accept his arguments for an independent strand of epitomization, separate from that of Orosius, Eutropius, Festus and the rest.
156
Obsequens appear in the epitome.179 It is hard to be absolutely sure of this since the
papyrus has many gaps and requires frequent restoration, but it holds up fairly well.
While Cassiodorus' entries tend to reproduce those in the epitome word for word,
Obsequens varied his wording and on occasion adds material to his source. Schmidt
argues that where Obsequens diverges from his source in historical data180 (largely
geographical, prosopographical and chronological), he did so through reference to the full
text of Livy, from which he had drawn his portents and prodigies. Schmidt further notes
that Obsequens went about his work either haphazardly, or from memory alone, or both;
he was careful to check and correct some notices, but he did not correct all of them,181 and
he made some mistakes of his own which are at variance with the Oxyrhynchus
epitome.182
A comparison of the three works is not easy. The Oxyrhynchus papyrus is badly
mutilated in many places, and the restorations at times cannot reasonably form the basis
for good argument. Furthermore, the modern text of Obsequens is based on the editio
princeps, which was printed from a single manuscript that is now lost, and consular
names in particular, crucial in any comparison of works dated eponymously, frequently
require restoration.183 As well, Schmidt has argued well that in at least one place
Obsequens shows signs of having resorted to the full text of Livy to correct the
179 Schmidt 1969,187. 180 As he frequently does: e.g. Obs. 2, P. Oxy. 668 6ff, where Obsequens knows that the Lusitani are
from Spain; Obs.3, P. Oxy. 668.44ff., where he knows that the Gauls came over the Alps; Obs. 4, P. Oxy. 668. 63ff., where he knows that the Celtiberi specifically were subdued in Spain, and many other places.
181 E.g. Obs. 3, P. Oxy. 668.44ff., the compression of events of two years into one. 182 E.g. Obs. 2, P. Oxy. 668. 6ff., where Obsequens places a Roman victory in Spain a year late; Obs. 23,
P. Oxy. 668. 185ff, where the Oxyrhynchus epitome records Fabius Maximus as being defeated by Viriathus, but Obsequens says "Viriatho victo."
183 Obsequens was first printed in an Aldine collection in 1508.
information he found in the epitome.
We have Cassiodorus' source for the imperial period, Victorius, and we can see
that he copied Victorius' consuls almost verbatim with no, or only minor, changes. It
seems likely that he would follow the same pattern when using the Livian epitome, and
so I am inclined to believe that the Republican list of consuls preserved in Cassiodorus is
a very nearly exact copy of what he had in front of him. Yet, as I noted above, the
comparison of Cassiodorus' work with Livy's points to an epitome which passed through
several stages between its initial extraction from Livy's full text to its use by Cassiodorus:
changes, errors, and additions crept in over time which may be tracked. The fact that both
Obsequens' Liber Prodigiorum and Oxyrhynchus 668 show different changes from those
in Cassiodorus suggest that they are not all copied from the same source.
That said, we must be very careful of making confident assertions about lost
sources for consular lists. While it seems clear that in late antiquity there were at least
three strains for the Republican consuls - those represented by the Descriptio consulum,
by the Chronicle of 354, and by Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus
papyrus -1 believe there were likely many copies of these lists in circulation in antiquity,
but of varying reliability and completeness. As we will see below from a comparison of
Cassiodorus with Livy, Julius Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus 668, while each
demonstrably descended from the same epitome of Livy, there are sufficient differences
in each to show that they came by separate paths.185 Epitomes, and particularly consular
lists, were not treated in the same way as literary documents. Copyists did not feel the
184 Obsequens' use of the Livian consularia [explain] is a good example of how these skeletal chronologies might provide a framework for the composition of a longer historical work.
185 See Burgess 2000, 265-266 where he lays out some sensible guidelines and cautions for assessing the relationships between different versions of the fasti.
same requirements of accuracy when reproducing a list: names were truncated, altered,
omitted or inserted, consular iterations were omitted, corrected or restored haphazardly.
In many ways, it seems the possession of the list was the important thing, not the quality
of the list. As I said in my introduction, this lack of concern for completeness among the
copyists was at least part of Cassiodorus' motivation in compiling a new list.
I will begin with a detailed comparison of Cassiodorus' consular list with those of
Obsequens and the papyrus. There are many similarities, both in the historical notes and
the consular fasti, which indisputably connect Cassiodorus, Obsequens and the
Oxyrhynchus papyrus, many of which will be demonstrated below and which a cursory
comparison of all three documents immediately reveals.186 There are three conjunctive
errors among them, which prove their connection. The first, the most commonly adduced
error, is the mistaken identification of Ptolemy Apion, king of Cyrene and son of Ptolemy
VIII, as the king of Egypt:
Cass. 471: Ptolemaeus Aegypti rex populum Romanum heredem reliquit. Obs. 49: Urbe lustrata Ptolemaeus, rex Aegypti, Cyrenis mortuus SPQ
Romanum heredem reliquit.
The second is the reversal of a pair of consuls from the order they are given in Livy:
Livy: Cn Baebium Tamphilum et L Aemilium Paullum (39.56.4) Cass: L Paulus et Cn Baebius Obs. L Aemilio Paulo Cn Baebio Tamphilo P. Oxy: LA N Berio187
The third is the praenomen of the second consul of 178, which in Livy is "A."(Aulus;
186 See the compared list of consuls from Cassiodorus, Obsequens and P. Oxy. 668 which follows. 187 The reading in the papyrus "Berio" seems certain, but it is easy to see how "Baebio" might be
corrupted into "Berio."
40.59.4), but in Cassiodorus and Obsequens is "Cn." (Gnaeus).
These three works must be compared in detail to demonstrate clearly not only
how different several lists which are clearly dependent ultimately on the same source can
be, but also the ways in which changes can be made to the lists. The comparison will
further demonstrate that, in all likelihood, no one of these documents came from the
other, and further that even a common single source among them all is difficult to see.
There must have been dozens, if not more, different versions of the same Livian list in
circulation in late antiquity, each largely the same, but each showing differences which
will be demonstrated below. This comparison will further serve to explain why
Cassiodorus' Republican list shows some of the characteristics it does.
When I say that one or more documents "agree" in the case of a given consular
pair, I mean that the names are in the same order and that the gentilicia and the
cognomina agree. There are too many mistakes in the praenomina in the consular lists to
attach any weight to differences in them from one list to the next, so I have largely
ignored them, even in the cases where they are omitted altogether. Similarly, differences
in spelling are widespread, and I have passed over even variations such as Cassiodorus'
"Mamercus" in 166 for Obsequens' correct "Metellus" as possible copyist's errors and
have treated them as the same name. I have also left consular iterations out of
consideration because the only ones common to Cassiodorus and the other two authors
are those of Marius and Julius Caesar, and there is evidence, as I discussed above, to
suggest that these iterations were added later.189 Neither Obsequens nor the Oxyrhynchus
188 Rossbach corrected the "Cn" of the first printed edition of Obsequens to "A," but the reading should stand based on the same in Cassiodorus.
189 Pp. 138ff..
fragment have iterations. Instances of "possible agreement" are so designated where,
because of the poor state of the papyrus, or the text of Obsequens, it is impossible to be
sure. Even where the space available on the papyrus might permit or not permit a given
restoration, I have adopted a cautious approach and have refrained for the most part in
treating a restoration as certain.
"Disagreement" between pairs of consuls means that the two names are reversed,
or that at least one of the two names in the consular pair in question appears with a
gentilicium or cognomen which the other list does not have. These include instances
where both lists record the gentilicium but one has a cognomen in addition, as in 142,
where Cassiodorus has "L. Metellus et Q. Maximus," while Obsequens has "L. Metello
Q. Fabio Maximo," and also instances where one list records the gentilicium and the
other the cognomen, as in 138, where Cassiodorus has "P. Scipio et D. Brutus," while the
papyrus has "P. Scipione D. Iunio."
Cassiodorus, of course, has a full set of Republican consuls. Julius Obsequens
covers the period from 190 to 11 BCE, while the Oxyrhynchus fragment covers the period
from 189 to 137 BCE with a break of twenty-eight years from 178 to 151BCE. Neither
Obsequens nor the papyrus records all the years within their respective periods. The
following list includes all the comparable consular pairs for all three authors between 190
and 11 BCE with no restorations.
Cassiodorus Julius Obsequens P Oxy 668
190 L Scipio et C Laelius L Scipione C Laelio
189 M Fulvius et Cn Manlius ]cn manlio
188 M Messala et C Livius Salinator M Messala C Livio Julio calinatore
187 M Lepidus et C Flaminius Jaminio
186 Sp Postumius et Q Marcius
185 App Claudius et M Sempronius
184 P Claudius et L Porcius Licinius
183 M Claudius et Q Fabius Labeon
182 L Paulus et Cn Baebius
181 P Lentulus et M Baebius
180 A Postumius et C Calpurnius
179 Q Fulvius et L Manlius
178 M Iunius et Cn Manlius
177 T Sempronius et C Claudius
176 Cn Cornelius et Q Petillius
175 M Lepidus et Q Mucius
167 Q Aelius Paeto et M Iunius
166 M Mamercus et C Sulpicius
165 Cn Octavius et T Manlius
163 T Sempronius et M Iuventius
162 P Scipio Nasica et C Marcius
156 L Lentulus et C Marcius
154 L Postumius et Q Opimius
152 M Marcellus et L Valerius
149 L Marcius et M Manlius
148 Sp Postumius et L Piso
147 P Africanus et C Livius
146 Cn Cornelius et L Mummius
145 Q Fabius Maximus et L Hostilius
144 SerGalbaetLAurelius
143 App Claudius et Q Metellus
142 L Metellus et Q Maximus
141 Cn Caepio et Q Pompeius
140 Q Caepio et C Laelius
139 Cn Piso et M Popilius
M Claudio Q Fabio Labeone
L Aemilio Paulo Cn Baebio Tamphilo
Q Fulvio L Manlio
M Iunio Cn Manlio"0
C Claudio
Lucio Petellio"1
M Lepido Q Mucio
Q Aemylio Paeto M Iulio
M Marcello P Sulpicio
Cn Octavio T Manlio
T Graccho M Iuventio
P Scipione Nasi Gn Martio
L Lentulo C Marcio
L Opimio Quinto Posthumio
M Claudio Marcello L Valerio Flacco
Spurio Postumio L Pisone
P Africano C Laelio
Appio Claudio P Metello
L Metello Q Fabio Maximo
Gn Caepione C Laelio
sppostumo[
app oclaud o
p claudio pulchr cinio
m claudio marcello[
1 a nberio
p lentulo m paebio
a postumio c
q fulvio 1 manlio
1 marcio censorino m manilio
cn cornel[
q fabio max[
ser galba 1[
q metello [
]caepione q pompeio
.. ]pione laelio salasso
cn pisone c polli
190 Rossbach makes the correction of "A. Manlio for Gn. Manlio," which I do not accept. 191 In the first printed edition of Obsequens, the consuls of 177 and 176 appear as a pair: "C. Claudio Q.
Petellio."
162
138 P Scipio et D Brutus
137 M Aemilius et C Hostilius Mancinus
136 P Furius et Sex Atilius Serranus
135 Ser Fulvius et Q Calpurnius
134 P Africanus et C Fulvius Flaccus
130 App Claudius et M Perperna
126 M Aemilius et L Aurelius
125 M Plautius et M Fulvius
124 C Cassius Longinus et C Sextius
122 Cn Domitius et C Fannius
121 L Opimius et Q Maximus
119 LCaecilius etL Aurelius
118 M Cato et Q Marcius
117 L Caecilius et Q Mucius
114 M Acilius Balbus et C Cato
113 C Caecilius et C Papirius
111 P Scipio et L Calpurnius Bestia
108 Ser Galba et M Scaurus
106 Q Servilius et C Atilius Serranus
105 P Rutilius Rufus et C Manhus
104 C Marius II et C Fl Fimbria
102 C Marius IIII et Q Lutatius
100 C Marius VI et L Valerius Flaccus
99 M Antonius et A Postumius
98 Q Metellus et T Didius
97 Cn Lentulus et P Crassus
96 Cn Domitius et C Cassius
95 P Crassus et Q Scaevola
94 C Coelius et L Domitius
93 C Valerius Flaccus et M Herennius
92 C Claudius Pulcher et M Perpema
91 L Marcius et Sex Iulius
90 L Caesar etC Rutilius Lupus
88 L Sylla et Q Pompeius
M Aemilio C Hostilio Mancino
L Furio Atilio Sarrano
Ser Flacco Q Calpurmo
P Africano C Fulvio
Appio Claudio M Perperna
M Aemilio L Aurelio
P Plautio M Fulvio
C Cassio Longino C Sextilio
Cn Domitio C Fannio
L Opimio Q Fabio Maximo
L Aurelio et L Caecilio
M Catone Quintio Marcio
L Caecilio L Aurelio
M Acilio C Porcio
C Caecilio Cn Papirio
P Scipione L Calpurnio
Sergio Galba M Scauro
Q Servilio Caepione Atilio Sarrano
P Atilio et Cornelio Manilio
C Mario C Flacc
C Mario Q Lutatio
C Mario L Valerio
M Antonio A Postumio
Q Metello Tullio Didio
Cn Cornelio Lentulo P Licinio
Cn Domitio C Cassio
P Crasso Q Scaevola
C Laelio L Domitio
C Valerio M Herennio
C Claudio M Perpenna
L Marcio Sex Iulio
L Iulio Caesare P Rutilio
L Sylla Q Pompeio
p sc.pione d iunio
m aemilio c hostilio m.cino
83
77
76
75
63
60
54
50
46
45
44
L Scipio et C Norbanus
Mam Aemilius et D Brutus
Cn Octavius et C Curio
L Octavius et C Cotta
M Cicero et C Antonius
Q Metellus et L Afranius
App Claudius et L Domitius
L Paulus et M Marcellus
C lulius Caesar III et M Lepidus
C lulius Caesar MI et Fabius Maximus
C lulius Caesar V et M Antonius
L Scipione C Norbano
Marco Aemilio D Bruto
Cn Octavio C Scribonio
Lucio Aurelio L Octavio
M Cesone C Antonio
Quinto Metello L Afranio
Gneo Domitio Appio Claudio
L Paulo C Marcello
C Caesare M Lepido
C Caesare M Antonio
43 C Pansa et A Hirtius C Pansa Hirtio
42 M Lepidus et L Plancus M Lepido Munatio Planco
17 T Furnius et C Silanus C Furnio C Syllano
11 Paulus Fabius et Q Aelius Paulo Fabio Q Aelio
A quick glance through the three lists shows that, broadly speaking, the lists agree
more than they disagree, which we would expect. But what do the differences mixed in
with the similarities suggest? Both tell a part of the story of the Livian consularia. As we
saw above in the comparison of Cassiodorus' consular names with the surviving portions
of Livy the original epitome was probably a much fuller work than what Cassiodorus
had, with the full names of all the consuls recorded where it was possible. The names,
however, had evidently been shortened by copyists who omitted either gentilicium or
cognomen and probably most of the iterations. The comparison of the differences among
the descendants of the Livian consularia tell the same story: different copyists included
and omitted different pieces of the consular names.
Of the seven years in which all three lists record consuls, only two have the same
164
names (179 and 137), and five have at least one disagreement among them (188, 183,
182, 143 and 140).192 The consuls of 182 BCE are noteworthy. The names recorded by
Cassiodorus are "L. Paulus et Gn. Baebius," by Obsequens "L. Aemilio Paulo Gn. Baebio
Tamphilo," and by the Oxyrhynchus epitome, "L. A[emilio C]n. Baebio [coss.]" The fact
that both Cassiodorus and Obsequens give L. Aemilius Paulus' cognomen indicates that it
appeared in the original epitome, but it does not appear in the papyrus.
Of the twenty-two consular pairs which can be compared in Cassiodorus and the
papyrus, five are certainly the same (181, 179, 141, 139 and 137), ten possibly agree
(189, 188, 187, 186, 185, 180, 148, 146, 145 and 144), and seven show differences in at
least one of the two names in each pair (184, 183, 182, 149, 143, 140 and 138).
Of the sixty-nine consular pairs which can be compared in Cassiodorus and
Obsequens, forty-one pairs are the same (190, 183, 179, 178, 175, 167, 166, 165, 162,
156, 148, 147, 143, 140, 137, 136, 130, 126, 125, 124, 122, 118, 113, 108, 106, 102, 99,
96, 95, 94,193 91, 88, 83, 77, 63, 60, 50, 43, 17 and 11). There are three pairs which are
conflated in the text of Obsequens and which may not have been so in the original work,
but we cannot tell (177, 176, 117). Cassiodorus records at least one name differently from
Obsequens in twenty-six years (188, 182, 163, 154, 152, 142, 135, 134, 121, 119, 117,
114, 111, 105, 104, 100, 98, 97, 93, 92, 90, 76, 75, 54, 46, 44 and 42).
Of the differences between Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus fragment (184, 183,
182, 149, 143, 140 and 138), the fragment has a cognomen that Cassiodorus does not
192 These five pairs are also included in the comparisons below of Cassiodorus with the papyrus and Cassiodorus with Obsequens.
193 In this year Cassiodorus has "C. Coelius et L. Domitius," while Obsequens has "C. Laelio L. Domitio. " The correct names for the year are "C. Coelius Caldus and L. Domitius Ahenobarbus." The name in Obsequens has been corrupted.
165
have in 184, 183, 149 and 140. In 182 and 139, Cassiodorus records the cognomen, while
the papyrus records the gentilicium, and in 143 the names are evidently reversed. The fact
that the papyrus has been dated through handwriting to the end of the third century or
beginning of the fourth, 200 years before Cassiodorus produced his Chronica, is no
guarantee, of course, that it went through fewer copyings and therefore fewer alterations
than the copy used by Cassiodorus did, but the fact that the papyrus has more instances of
the full name than does Cassiodorus makes it likely.
Of the twenty-six years where Cassiodorus disagrees with Julius Obsequens (188,
182, 163, 154, 152, 142, 135, 134, 121, 119, 117, 114, 111, 105, 104, 100, 98, 97, 93, 92,
90, 76, 75, 54, 46, 44 and 42), three are simple reversals of names (154, 119 and 54). In
twelve cases, Cassiodorus has a gentilicium or a cognomen that Obsequens does not have
(188, 134, 114, 105,194104, 100, 93, 92, 90, 46 and 44). In eight cases Obsequens has a
gentilicium or cognomen that Cassiodorus does not (182 both names, 152 both names,
142, 121, 106, 97, 90 and 42). In six cases, one records the cognomen and the other the
gentilicium (163, 135, 114, 97, 76 and 75). Obsequens has more corruptions of names
(105, 98, 94, 77) than does Cassiodorus for the same period, and more mistakes and
conflations of consular pairs (177, 176, 117), but since the first printed edition is the only
witness to the lost, singular manuscript of Obsequens, it is difficult to assess these
divergences. But these mistakes, and the fact that Cassiodorus has fuller names in twelve
cases and Obsequens in eight at least suggests that the version of the fasti that
Cassiodorus used had been less altered and shortened than Obsequens'.
194 For 105 Cassiodorus records "P. Rutilius Rufus et C Manlius," while Obsequens has "P. Atilio Cornelio Manilio." Obsequens' "P. Atilio" is a corruption of Cassiodorus' correct "P. Rutilius."
But along with all the differences, what are we to make of the similarities,
particularly where they can be identified securely, as they can between Cassiodorus and
Obsequens? It is possible that they go all the way back to the original epitome, but in
every case but four names where we can compare Livy's record of the consular elections
(190, 189, 187, 173) Livy records all three names, and we have seen that it was likely the
epitomator's method to record all three. It is more likely, then, that all three lists which
descend from the Livian consularia come from an intermediate version in which the
process of stripping away either the gentilicium or the cognomen along with the consular
iterations, had already begun. Copies were made of this intermediate version which
retained some names and eliminated others according to the whim of the copyists. These
copies of the intermediate version also included the historical notices which occur in all
three representatives. It is then these copies which our representatives used, though it is
possible that the papyrus is a copy of the intermediate version which I have posited. But
it is possible that such speculation cuts the evidence too thin.
The transmission of the consular lists cannot be treated with the tools of the
textual critic, who relies on the intent of the copyist to make an accurate copy of his
original. The consular lists suffered changes and abbreviation because what mattered only
was that list preserved an accurate number of years (i.e. consular pairs) and an accurate
list of names, but not that the entire name was preserved. The focus of our particular
epitomator was in all likelihood not Livy's historical detail so much as his consular list.
As the list was copied and re-copied, variations and changes were introduced which
produced a web of Livian recensions to which the three existing lists belong. We can say
167
with certainty that Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and the author of P. Oxy. 668 used very
similar lists when creating their own, but that is all. A correct stemma would look like
number 1 below, rather than number 2.
1. Livy 2. Livy
Epitome Epitome
Rec 1 Rec 2 Rec 3 Cassiodorus Obsequens R Oxy. 668
Rec la Rec 2a Rec 3a
Cassiodorus Obsequens R Oxy. 668
Aufidius Bassus
As Cassiodorus says in his supputatio, he used Aufidius Bassus after Livy and
before Victorius. Unfortunately we know very little about Aufidius: we do not know
when he began his histories, and we do not know where they ended.195 Some have used
Cassiodorus' work as an indication of where he might have ended, but as we will see,
there is no reason to believe that Cassiodorus recorded all of Bassus' consuls to the end of
Bassus' history. The earliest subject we know he treated was the death of Cicero,196 but
195 The best discussion of Aufidius Bassus remains Syme's 1958, vol 2, 697-700. 196 Seneca the Elder, Suas. 6.18ff. See Peter, HRRII. 110-112.
168
Syme and others express doubts that this was part of his history. However that may be,
the death of Cicero must be the starting point for those who are trying to find Aufidius
Bassus in the pages of Cassiodorus. There can be little doubt where Cassiodorus stopped
using him. Upon Cassiodorus' adoption of Victorius in the eighteenth year of Tiberius'
reign, the form of the consular names changes from the "praenomen + gentilicium" or
"praenomen + cognomen" to the simple cognomen. All the historical notes after that
point come from Jerome alone (with a few additions from Eutropius) until 378 CE.
There is, however, no noticeable change at all from the material that is certainly
Livian, before the death of Cicero, and that which is certainly from Bassus, after 9 BCE,
where Livy finished. The consular names are recorded in the same manner; the historical
notes are delivered in the same, crisp, paratactic style as the Livian notes. The uniformity
of the treatment of the extracts from Livy and from Aufidius suggest that the same person
had done the work, and that the epitome which Cassiodorus copied his consuls from
contained both authors.
In fact, some of the same issues crop up with the consular list from Bassus as was
seen above with the Livian consuls. In 31 CE Tiberius held his fifth consulship with
Sejanus and it is marked as his fifth in Cassiodorus (though without Sejanus, who
suffered damnatio memoriae and so his name was removed from the fasti): "Ti. Caesar V
conss." None of Tiberius' previous four consulships gets an iteration. In the first, 13 BCE,
he is identified in Cassiodorus merely as T. Nero, rather than by his full name, Tiberius
Claudius Nero. The gentilicium "Claudius" has been dropped. In his second consulship in
7 BCE, beyond the range of Livy's histories and so certainly from Bassus' list, he is again
identified as "T. Nero." Here we see the name treated in the same way, despite the
passage from one author, Livy, to the next, Bassus. His three remaining consulships, all
held after his formal adoption by Augustus in 4 BCE and after he became emperor, in 18,
21, and 31 CE, all identify him as "Ti. Caesar." Only the last has an iteration, however.
Again we see one of the two names dropped along with the iteration, but one iteration
being retained, possibly because he was the only consul of record for the year. It is not
conceivable that a copyist could have recognized that the Nero of twenty-five years
before was the same as the emperor of 18 CE.
The iterations attached to Augustus' consulships, however, are late additions,
again either to the Chronicle itself or to Cassiodorus' source. I am treating these iterations
here rather than above with those from the Livian portion because they cross the divide
between Livy and Bassus and suggest that Cassiodorus used a single epitome which
included both authors. In all later official lists, and surely in Aufidius Bassus' work itself,
Octavian's suffect consulship in 43 is treated as his first consulship (as indeed it was), his
consulship in 33 is then his second, and so on. This is the numbering that we see in the
fasti of the Chronograph of 354 and the Descriptio consilium, even though neither text
preserves a record of Augustus' first suffect consulship. In Cassiodorus, however, the
consulship of 33 is numbered "I" and the numbering continues to Augustus' eleventh and
twelfth (really his twelfth and thirteenth) in 5 and 2 BCE respectively. What is more, the
consulship of Gaius Caesar in 1 CE is mistakenly attributed to Augustus as his thirteenth
consulship. Again, given that Cassiodorus tends to copy his source without changes, it
seems likely that these numbers are what he found in his source. If that is so, the epitome
which he had was a single work which included both Livy and Aufidius Bassus.
I have treated the missing consulship of the two Gemini as a textual issue
above.197 Clearly, though, Cassiodorus did not use the consularia he had to their end, or at
least, if he did, it is a remarkable coincidence that it ended exactly where Victorius' list
picks up. Mommsen's suggestion that Bassus' work ended with the fall of Sejanus is
unsupportable. Cassiodorus had begun using Jerome again when he mentioned Julius
Caesar as the first emperor. He also takes Jerome's words for the accession of
Augustus,198 the birth of Jesus,199 the death of Augustus and the succession of Tiberius,200
and the crucifixion of Jesus.201 But the remaining historical notes, between the end of
Livy in 9 BCE and the beginning of Victorius in 28 CE must be from Aufidius Bassus since
they do not derive from Jerome or witnesses to Livy. However, after he switches to
Victorius for his consuls, he drops Aufidius and switches completely to Jerome for
historical notes, though it is not clear why. It would certainly be more difficult to place
historical notes from Jerome into Victorius' framework.
Let me sum up, then, the sections on the Livian epitome and Aufidius Bassus.
Cassiodorus used an epitome of Livy which was extended with an epitome of Aufidius
Bassus. This epitome perhaps began with Livy's consuls of 509 BCE and extended
certainly to 28 CE, but likely further. It included sparse historical notes. The same person
epitomized both works and seems to have been careful to include all three names of each
consul, sometimes even looking outside the pages of Livy for more information. Over the
197 See above, pp. 123ff.. 198 Helm 156a. 199 Helm 169c. 200 Helm 171d,e. 201 Helm 174d.
years, the epitomized Livy was further shortened by copyists and the consular names
were reduced as was the growing trend both privately and officially. P. Oxy. 668 and the
documents used by Julius Obsequens and Cassiodorus are examples of these epitomized
epitomes. It seems likely that Cassiodorus, who managed his sources conservatively and
points to their authority rather than his own, did not himself alter the names that he found
in the epitome he used.
Victorius of Aquitaine
Having taken the bulk of his Republican consuls and a few imperial ones from
Livy and Aufidius Bassus whose authority, even in epitome, was (as he thought)
unassailable, Cassiodorus turned to the Cursus Paschalis of Victorius of Aquitaine to
complete his fasti down to his own day.202 Victorius' list was a relatively new product in
the early sixth century, produced in 457 and so just over sixty years old in 519, but it was
very well known.
Cassiodorus is at pains to assure his reader that his consular list comes from an
impeccable source: he says that it came "ex...paschali virorum clarorum auctoritate
firmato'V'from an Easter cycle, made trustworthy by the authority of famous men," but
202 It has long been recognized that Victorius was the source for the consuls from the crucifixion at least as far as 457, see Mommsen 113. In what follows I have used Krusch's 1938 text of Victorius for consular names to 457. For consular names from 458 to 519 I refer to the three manuscripts of Victorius which contain consular names: Gotha 75 fol. 70ff (G), Leiden Seal. 28 (L) and Bodley 309 (S). This last was thought by Krusch and Mommsen to have been lost, and they reconstructed its readings from the print editions of Petavius (1627) and Bucherius (1634). However, the real readings of S are very different from those of Petavius and Bucherius (who seem to have corrected them with reference to Cassiodorus), and so are also very different from those of Krusch, Mommsen and, unfortunately, of the CLRE. The readings presented here are from the manuscript itself. New editions of the consular lists of all three manuscripts from 458 to 559 are necessary.
he does not give the name of the author. However, a comparison of Victorius' consuls
with Cassiodorus' demonstrates immediately that the latter is dependent on the former,
though it has perhaps been corrected in places. More on this later. First, we must address
the question of why Cassiodorus did not name the author of the consular list which he
used.
The history of Victorius' Easter tables in Italy is reasonably well attested.203 In the
years leading up to the Easter of 455 Rome and the eastern churches had been at odds
over the date of Easter. After long opposition Pope Leo eventually gave way and
celebrated Easter with the eastern churches, believing that universal harmony was more
important the actual correctness (or otherwise) of the date. But in 456 we find his arch
deacon Hilary, later pope, engaging Victorius of Aquitaine to draw up a new authoritative
calculation for the date of Easter and to investigate the causes of the dispute.204 Victorius
responded in 457 with a 532-year cycle (twenty-eight cycles of nineteen years each)205
which he calculated backwards from 457 to the consulship of the two Gemini and the
traditional date of the crucifixion (which should have been 29 but was actually assigned
to the Easter of 28 since his consular list was one year too long), and he extended it 102
years into the future (to 559). His calendar took the form of six columns: the 'year from
the crucifixion', counting 29 (or rather 28) as year one; a consular list from 29 to 457 CE;
the ferial, i.e. the day of the week on which the kalends of January fell; the epact, the age
203 The essential bibliography to the following discussion is Krusch 1884 and 1938 and Jones 1934. 204 Epistula Hilari ad Victorium; references to Victorius' work are to Krusch's 1938 edition. 205 The Metonic cycle—the period when a particular phase of the moon will reappear on the same day of
the year—is nineteen years long. In order to calculate the date of Easter for any given year (since on account of its origins with Passover Easter is calculated according to a lunar calendar) one then multiplies nineteen by seven, which accounts for the different days of the week, and then by four, which accounts for the four years of the intercalary cycle of leap years: 1 9 x 7 x 4 = 532.
of the moon on the kalends of January; the date of Easter; and the epact for Easter. A
seventh column contained alternate dates for celebrating Easter, each labelled "Graeci,"
"Latini" or "Romani" depending on which calendar or calculation they were derived
from.206 Victorius' cycle was thus in many ways useless, since it did not serve to establish
the authoritative method of calculation that was required (indeed, given the fundamental
disagreements involved in the calculation between East and West, it could not have) and
only served to mark when controversy was likely to arise. It is well outside the scope of
this work to discuss Victor's method of calculating the date of Easter or indeed to discuss
the modern controversies arising from his methods of calculation.207 Suffice it to say that,
as Jones has stated, Victorius' Easter calendar was not used as an authoritative document,
but rather was a reference tool for the western church designed to give them some
leverage in dealing with the more astronomically inclined Alexandrians. As such,
Victorius' calendar did not solve any problems, but neither did it give rise to any which
did not already exist.
Cassiodorus does not mention Victorius by name, which is strange considering his
desire to use authoritative sources for his consular list. His reference to famous men,
however, suggests that he knew who the author was, and possibly that his readers would,
also.208 Both Krusch and Mommsen addressed the issue of who the "clari viri" are to
whom Cassiodorus referred. Krusch appears to have favoured the view that the list was
206 "Latini" refers to the western church, "Romani" to the city of Rome, which had its own rules about when Easter should fall. These were originally mistaken for marginal, historical notes, written after the fact. They were, however, original with the document and presumably were included to give warning over potential controversy. Where such notations occur, Victorius appears to have favoured the first date, in the fifth column.
207 The best discussion of the history and calculation of Easter is in Jones 1943. 208 None of the surviving manuscripts of Victorius is without the two introductory letters of Hilary and
Victorius.
accepted by the church formally, and that the "famous men" referred to the decision of
the Roman church, though he altered his opinion slightly later.210 Mommsen suggested
that the "clari viri" referred to are Hilary and Victorius, and added further that the tables
were used in Italy "communi consensu," rather than due to any official decision.211 The
point is, however, irrelevant to the present discussion.
But there is evidence that Victorius' Easter cycle was bound up in the Laurentian
schism at the beginning of the sixth century, and Cassiodorus' reticence to name his
source may find its roots there. This schism came to a head with the election of two popes
after the death of Pope Anastasius in 498 and was not resolved until the death of Pope
Symmachus in 514. As Moorhead and others have suggested, the schism centred around
differing opinions among the bishops of Italy as to the conciliatory approach that Pope
Anastasius had taken with his counterparts in Constantinople and Alexandria with regard
to the Acacian controversy.212 The followers of Laurentius supported Anastasius'
approach, while those of Symmachus favoured a more aggressive stance which asserted
the authority of the Roman see. In the spring of 501 Pope Symmachus came under fire
for celebrating Easter "non cum universitate. "213 Krusch argues convincingly that what is
meant here is that Symmachus celebrated Easter according to the old Roman Easter
calendar, which was based on an eighty-four year lunar cycle (not a 532-year cycle) and
209 Krusch 1884, 103: "durch die Autoritat beriihmter Manner bestatigt, also sicher von der Kirche recipiert...."
210 Krusch 1937, 5. 211 Chron.Min.2. 113. 212 The Acacian controversy was a temporary schism (482-519) between the eastern and western
churches which began when the Pope refused to agree to the emperor Zeno's Henotikon, a document designed to reconcile the differences of the Monophysite controversy. See Moorhead 1992, 134-135.
213 Fragmentum Laurentianum, 44.
survives in fragmented form, and which dated the Easter of 501 to 25 March.2 The
reckonings both of Victorius and the eastern church gave a date of 22 April, on which
date Symmachus' rival Laurentius and his followers, possibly most of the churches in
Rome, celebrated Easter. The matter, along with several other charges, was serious
enough that Symmachus was summoned to Ravenna to explain himself to Theoderic, but
Symmachus returned to Rome before he had seen the king and closed himself up in St.
Peter's.213 A council called by Theoderic and held at the church of Santa Croce in
Ierusalem in Rome on 1 September 501, not far from the Lateran basilica, ultimately
refused to pass judgment on Symmachus and in doing so restored him to his position.216
However, much of the Roman church remained in a state of schism with Symmachus
until his death in 514.217 During this time, a pro-Symmachan partisan wrote a pamphlet
under the name of Pope Silvester (314-335), now generally entitled the Constitutum
Sylvestri}1* In it one "Victorinus," the author of an Easter calendar, who has been
convincingly identified as Victorius, is criticized and anathematized in the mouth of the
emperor Constantine.219 Another letter purported to be from Pope Sylvester to the council
214 Krusch (1884) 104-106. 215 Fragmentum Laurentianum, 44. 216 MGH AA 12.426-432. The records of this council and others held under the Ostrogothic kings were
edited by Mommsen at the end of his MGH volume of Cassiodorus' Variae. 217 Moorhead (1992) 125-126. 218 PL 8.829-840; Maassen, 537-39; 557-59. 219 Duchesne, L. Le Liber Pontificalis, 1886-1892; Krusch 1884, 105-106. Sc. Victorinus "qui in sua
ferocitate, quidquid vellet, affirmabat hominibus, et cyclos paschae pronuntiabat fallaces, ut hoc quod constituit decimo kalendas Maii custodiri, vestro sermone, sicut Veritas habet, cassetur, et vestro indicio condemnetur, et filiorum nostrorum Augustorum praecurrat auctoritas ad condemnandum Victorinum episcopum. Damnavit autem ... et Victorinum episcopum, qui ignorans lunae rationem, sub arbitrio sui tenacitate derumpebat veritatem, et praesentiae episcoporum supra dictorum et presbyterorum damnabit Hyppolytum, Victorinum, Calixtum, et dedit eis anathema, et damnavit eos extra urbes suas"/"...who in his madness affirmed for men whatever he wished and pronounced false Easter cycles, such as this, which he decided was to be kept on the tenth day before the kalends of May, let him be brought to nothing by your speech, just as truth has it, and let him be condemned by your judgement and let the authority of my sons the Augusti race to condemn the bishop Victorinus. And he condemned also Victorinus the bishop who, without knowledge of the movement of the moon,
176
of Nicaea, but identified by Duchesne as the same as the author of the Constitutum
Sylvestri, makes a similar assault on a "Victorinus."220 Victorius' list is thus associated by
name with a schism in the Roman church which would have been fresh in everyone's
memory in 519, particularly since Cassiodorus mentions it explicitly in the year of his
own consulship, 514, as a disagreement which troubled both the clergy and the people of
the city: "Me etiam consule in vestorum laude temporum adunato clero vel populo
Romanae ecclesiae rediit optata concordia'VAlso, while I was consul, in the praise of
your times the hoped-for peace returned to the Roman church with the clergy and, in fact,
the people united."
The senatorial families of Rome appear to have become embroiled and to have
taken sides in the schism. The Fragmentum Laurentianum and the Liber Pontificalis both
identify the patrician and ex-consul Rufius Postumius Festus, who had been consul in 472
and was caput senatus, as a supporter of Laurentius. The Liber Pontificalis adds the
consul of 489, Petronius Probinus, son of the consul of 481 and father of the consul of
504. Symmachus was supported by Anicius Probus Faustus niger, consul for 490, son of
the consul of 450 and father of the consuls of 502 and 506.221 Moorhead attempts to
determine where other senators stood in the conflict, but confesses that it is impossible to
demolished the truth under the will of his own willfulness and in the presence of the aforementioned bishops and presbyters he will condemn Hippolytus, Victorinus, Callixtus and he anathematized them and exiled them from their cities" (833).
220 PL 8.823: "Atque in gremio vestrae synodi parva propter disciplinam ecclesiae alligabo praecepta propter Victorinum, qui arbitrio suo quidquid vellet affirmabat et cyclos paschae pronunciat fallaces, et cum episcopis totius urbis Italiae examinatam universitas vestri sancti consilii dignetur accipere veritatem'V'And in the heart of your synod I will add a few suggestions for the sake of obedience because of Victorius, who of his own will affirmed whatever he wished and he pronounces false Easter cycles and with the bishops of every city of Italy let the whole of your sacred council be considered worthy to accept the examined truth " (1823).
221 Lib.pont. 260.10, 13, 19f., 261.7 f.. See Moorhead (1992) 130-131.
determine where Cassiodorus' own opinions lay. Still, Cassiodorus' failure to mention
Victorius by name need not suggest that his feelings lay with Symmachus and his
partisans, who had taken issue with his Easter calendar. As we will see later, Cassiodorus
in his Chronica is at pains not so much to push forward the claims or views of a
particular group as to avoid ruffling anyone's feathers. In order to get around the
possibility that a reader would reject his work list out of hand merely because of the
sources he used, Cassiodorus determined to name no source, but instead to assure his
readers that the consular list was an authoritative one and leave it at that. Whereas the
name Livy had given his Republican list the stamp of historical accuracy, in this case
vagueness accomplished the same thing.223
It is also probable that Cassiodorus did not name the authors of his consular list
because he did not know them. Cassiodorus' list extended to 519, and, as I will argue
below, he almost certainly drew his consuls from 458 to ca. 519 from a continuation of
Victorius' list. It is not unreasonable to imagine a list which was housed in Cassiodorus'
own family library and which was begun by his grandfather and kept up by his father and
then by himself. Lacking a personal copy, he could easily have acquired one from a
bookseller.
If Cassiodorus had not inherited a copy of Victorius' Easter calendar, there are
many other reasons why such a list could land in his hands. The list had a fairly wide
distribution in Italy and western Europe and was certainly a popular document in Italy
before the work of Dionysius Exiguus in 525. Victor of Capua was critical of it in 550,
222 Moorhead (1992) 131-133. 223 Perhaps he is also referring to the authority of Prosper of Aquitaine, since Victorius says in his preface
that he used Prosper's consular list.
which suggests that it was still regarded by some as authoritative very late. The Roman
senatorial class was deeply interested in the affairs of the Roman see and its relationship
with the eastern churches. Since the final, official, setting of the date of Easter was done
on a yearly basis, each year could potentially be a "problem year" with the added
possibility of disagreement and resulting schism. Victorius' list, in addition to proposing
its own dates for Easter, noted in its sixth column alternate dates for "Graeci," "Latini"
and "Romani" so that anyone using the list would know in advance when there might be
a disagreement about the date for the festival. In addition to these general matters which
will have been on everyone's mind, Cassiodorus, who may have been in Rome for some
or all of the time between the end of his quaestorship in 511 and the beginning of his
tenure as magister militum in 523, had made the acquaintance of Dionysius Exiguus,
either in the capacity of pupil or friend.225 By 519 Dionysius must have been interested in
the calculation of the date of Easter. Cassiodorus also displayed interest, albeit later in
life, in chronographic calculation, writing his own computuspaschalis in 562.226 The
calculus uses the reckoning of Dionysius Exiguus as one might expect, since by this time
in Italy at least, the usefulness of Victorius' tables had been discredited.227 The tenor of
the times, Cassiodorus' academic acquaintances and his own predilections all point to the
likelihood that he would have acquired Victorius' tables.
224 Victor of Capua, quoted in Bede, de ratione temporum, 50. For all of the fragments of Victor's work, see PL 68 1097-1098.
225 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.23.2, where he speaks of Dionysius, "qui mecum dialecticam legit." See O'Donnell, 24-25, 42.
226 For more detailed discussion of the computus paschalis see P. Lehmann 1959 vol. 2, 49-54 including critical edition, and O'Donnell, 217.
227 The last we hear of Victorius' tables in Italy is an entry in the Excerpta Sangallensia for 567 which indicates that Victorius was wrong: "in caelo luna XVI non comparuit II kl. Ian.." Victorius' tables have "lunaXVir for the kalends of January 568. This is also the only indication from Italy that Victorius' 532-year cycle was being used from the beginning again.
When it came to using Victorius' work for his Chronica, however, Cassiodorus
had no use for the Easter tables. And he was not alone in putting the tables to other uses.
There are three other examples of Victor's calendar being used for its consular dates as
much as for its Easter list. The so-called Paschale Campanum is, in part, a copy of
Victorius' list from 464-560 with historical notes added, originally copied around 512.228
It lists the consuls regularly only until 543 (skipping all the post consulates of Basilius
down to the twenty-fifth in 566), but the Easter list until 560. From there on it is
continued haphazardly and in various hands to 613, where the text breaks off. After 512
there is only one historical entry (relating a triumph of Tiberius in 576) and the earlier
ones are thought to have been taken from one of the lost Italian consular lists.229 The
second example is from the manuscripts of Cassiodorus' Chronica itself. Though the
original work ended in 519, it has a continuation to 559, also taken from Victorius' Easter
tables as the final date suggests.230 This continuation of Cassiodorus' work with the same
source which gave him most of his imperial consuls is unlikely to have been a
coincidence. It suggests at the very least the proximity of Victorius' list with Cassiodorus'
Chronica in a library, perhaps the one left behind by him in Rome, perhaps the one he
had at Cassiciacum. At some point his Chronica was brought up to date by means of a
copy Victor's list which had been kept up in the forty years that had passed since the
228 Edited by Mommsen in Chron. Min I, 744-750 (the full text) and 305-334 (the historical entries only). It survives in a single seventh century manuscript (Vat. Reg. 2077, f.96-98) which also includes a full text of Prosper's Chronicle.
229 Mommsen edited the historical entries from the Paschale Campanum alongside of the other Italian consular lists which are thought to be related to one another.
230 This continuation, like Q, is edited as X in Mommsen's edition of Victorius, cited above, though the consular lists have nothing to do with one another, since Victorius' Easter table allowed for the addition of consuls after 457 by whoever owned the copy.
completion of the Chronica. The third example of Victorius' consular list being used
apart from his Easter table is the consular list designated Q by Mommsen and Krusch and
edited along with Victorius on the belief that it came from Victorius' list. As I
demonstrate in Appendix 1, however, the early part of Q is a consular list unrelated to
Victorius, but someone copied the later consuls from a continuation of Victorius which
went up to the year 558.
A rapid comparison of the lists of Victorius and Cassiodorus shows the latter's
dependence on the former: the list is very like Prosper's, which was the source for
Victorius' list, and clearly comes from the strain outlined by Burgess which includes the
Fasti VindobonensesP1 A few variants and errors common to both Cassiodorus and
Victorius, but not to the other two lists, Prosper's and the Fasti Vindobonenses, establish
that Victorius is the source. Mommsen notes the consistent spelling of the name "Gabrio"
in both Cassiodorus and Victorius in the years 91, 124, 150, 186 and 256, whereas
Prosper always has (correctly) "Glabrio;" the omission by Cassiodorus and Victorius of
the consuls of 130; their common identification of one of the consuls of 358 as "Titianus"
rather than the correct "Datianus," which is what Prosper reads; and the consuls of 222,
which Victorius and Cassiodorus list as "Alexandra et Augusto" and "Alexander et
Augustus" respectively, whereas Prosper includes only "Alexandre "233 Also to be
231 This could also explain the full list of Cassiodorus' title at the beginning of the work, which Mommsen explained as being due to the transmission of the Chronica with the Variae early on. Whoever made the new copy of the work, taking it up to 559, might well also have added the full name and title of the author. It may have been completed by Cassiodorus himself, though Mommsen thought this unlikely.
232 Burgess 2000. 233 Mommsen includes these in a longer list of examples from his editions of 1861 and 1894 which show
that Cassiodorus used Victorius and not Prosper. However, some of his examples are incorrect, and, as we will see below, there remains a possibility that Cassiodorus or the version of Victorius that he used, had been corrected in places with direct reference to Prosper.
included are the consuls of 410, where the manuscripts of Prosper read "Varane vc cons.'
For this year, Victorius and Cassiodorus all have the western consul as well, Tertullus,
though with a sign that they were added after the entry had been copied from Prosper.
Manuscript G of Victorius reads "Varane vc et Tertullo" and L reads "Varione et Tertulo
vc." The presence of the abbreviation "vc," which tends to be used only when there is a
single consul for the years, suggests that Victorius copied Prosper's entry and then added
Tertullus' name after.234
A more detailed comparison of Cassiodorus with Victorius is necessary to
determine whether Cassiodorus changed or updated Victorius' list in any way, but such a
comparison requires some preliminary discussion of the comparanda: Prosper and the
different manuscripts of Victorius. It is not enough merely to compare Cassiodorus' work
with the published editions of either Prosper or Victorius because already by 519 when
Cassiodorus wrote his Chronica there were many different versions of both Prosper and
Victorius in circulation, with different readings and spellings of names. Often what look
like differences between Cassiodorus and Victorius must be dealt with by looking at all
the relevant readings of the manuscripts of both Victorius and Prosper. There is no one
surviving manuscript which is clearly the version which Cassiodorus used.
Of the eleven manuscripts of Victorius used by Krusch in his 1938 edition, only
four include the consular list or a part of it. G, L and S include the complete list of
consuls from 29 to 457, as well as extensions of the consular list, with G going down to
542, L to 522 and S to 559, the end of Victorius' calendar. Manuscript A has the consuls
234 Tertullus' name appears only in Hydatius and in a single inscription. See CLRE ad loc.
only from 29 as far as 182 with a significant gap from 151 to 171. The extensions of
the list beyond 457, which were probably produced by private individuals or booksellers
who kept up the lists from year to year as they learned the names of the consuls, can be
used to date within a decade when the individual manuscript strands certainly have
departed from one another. Common mistakes in L and S in the pre-457 part show clearly
that they are related, but all three manuscripts, G, S and L, diverged from one another at
least by the late 470's, and probably earlier. Therefore we must consider the readings of
all the manuscripts in the Victurian part of these lists, particularly of G and S, when
making comparisons with Cassiodorus, since we do not know exactly what reading he
had in his own copy.
We will also need to consider Cassiodorus' and Victorius' relationship to Prosper
of Aquitaine's consular list. To that end, a short digression on Victorius and Prosper is
necessary here. Victorius took his consular list from Prosper, whose chronicle he
mentions in his prologue.236 But Prosper's consular list varies among the different
versions which he produced, particularly near the end where he was able to include some
eastern consuls in 455 which he had missed 10 years earlier.237 Victorius tells us which
235 The manuscript designated Q by Mommsen and Krusch is only a consular list without an Easter calendar. It is attached to the end of a copy of Jerome's chronicle in Par. Lat. 4859, and runs from 379 to 558. However, despite Kaufmann's article of 1876 which demonstrated that Q's consular list to 457 is not Victorius', Mommsen and Krusch edited it along with the others. Kaufmann believed that the consular list of Q had been inserted into Victorius' Easter calendar and then extracted at a later date. However, as I demonstrate in Appendix 1, Q does not belong to the tradition of Victorius at all, and must be considered as an independently produced list. The sixth century consuls in Q probably come from a relative of the Victorius manuscript S, which explains why Q ends where Victorius' Easter calendar ended.
236 Victorius, prologue, 7: "Cuius (sc. Eusebii) tenorem vir venerabilis Prosper secutus, hisdem chronicis haec eadem egregia brevitate praeposuit, ut eorum initium a mundi incoaretur exordium." "And following his course, the venerable man Prosper substituted these same (totals) at the beginning of his chronica with outstanding brevity, so that the beginning of his work might coincide with the beginning of the world" (Prologus victorii, 7 = Krusch 1937, 22) It seems from earlier on in the same paragraph that Victorius had Prosper's work both as a continuation of Jerome and as his stand-alone chronicle.
237 What is more, Prosper's list was changed by later copyists, so that no consular list in any of the
183
version of Prosper's chronicle he used in his preface: in discussing the number of years
from the beginning of the world in the prefatory letter to his calendar, he mentions
Prosper, along with the consulship in which he ended his chronicle, the eighth consulship
of the emperor Valentinian and Anthemius, or 45 5.238 We need, therefore, to compare
Victorius' consuls with the version of Prosper represented by manuscripts M and Y, since
these are the manuscripts which contain the full text of Prosper's version of 455.239 M
omits the consuls of 130, Catulinus and Aper, as do the manuscripts of Victorius and
Cassiodorus. In 442, M reads "Dioscoro et Eudoxio," as do Victorius and Cassiodorus,
whereas many manuscripts of Prosper have only "Dioscoro." In 453, M reads "Opilione
et Vincomalo," along with Victorius and Cassiodorus, whereas many manuscripts of
Prosper have only "Opilione. "
The identification of Victorius' version of Prosper with M, however, is not so clear
cut. The years 404, 410, 414 and 452 all have different readings in Victorius and in
manuscript M of Prosper.240 In 404, a number of manuscripts of Prosper (ZXFPRHV) and
all those of Victorius have both consuls, Honorius VI and Aristaenetus, whereas some
(MYAO) have only Honorius VI.241 In 414, a few manuscripts of Prosper (RHV) list
Constans as the second consul of the year with Constantius, and all the manuscripts of
Victorius do as well. Finally, in 452, a number of manuscripts of Prosper (MYV) give the
manuscripts is exactly like any other. 238 "Porro ab Abraham usque in sextum Valentis consolatum et Valentiniani secundum duo milia
CCCXCV, ac deinde ab Auxonio Olibrioque consulibus, qui secuntur, usque octavum Valentiniani augusti consolatum et Anthemi VII et LXX'Y'Furthermore, from Abraham up to the sixth consulship of Valens and the second of Valentinian (there are) 2395 (years), and then from the time when Ausonius and Olybrius, who follow, were consuls up to the eighth consulship of Valentinian and Anthemius (there are) 77 (years)" (Prologus victorii, 7 = Krusch 1937, 23).
239 See Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time, forthcoming. 240 The consuls for the year 410 are dealt with above, p. 181. 241 Ms S of Victorius reads "Honorio V."
eastern consul for the year, Sporacius, as well as the western, Herculanus. Manuscripts G,
L and S of Victorius, however, have only the western consul. G reads "Herculanio vc
cons," L reads "Hircolano vv cc," and S reads "Ergulano." Cassiodorus has "Asporacius"
for the easterner, while the manuscripts of Prosper have "Asphoracio" (V)/"Asparaucio"
(H, an addition)/"Sporatio" (MY)." Victorius must originally have had "Herculano vc
cons" or something similar here: the name of the eastern consul, Sporacius, was added
later to Prosper and to the version of Victorius which Cassiodorus used. By 452, of
course, we are very close to both 455 and 457, the respective ends of Prosper's chronicle
and Victorius' calendar, and could expect that individuals who were adding consuls year-
by-year to their copies of Victorius, and those who were correcting Prosper, would be
able to remember the consuls for five or even ten years earlier well enough to make their
own additions or corrections, or might have learned late the name of the eastern consul
for 452. In any case, the plural abbreviation in L in 452, "vv cc," may suggest that a name
dropped out, or the copyist knew somehow that there was another consul but did not
know his name.242
The identification of M with the version of Prosper Victorius used is not certain,
but the lack of the consuls of 130 in both M and Victorius is strong evidence that the two
are related.243 Victorius himself could have added the consuls of 404 and 414.
There are, however, a number of consular pairs where Cassiodorus has readings
which are different from any of the manuscripts of Victorius and which are correct where
Victorius is wrong. In 61, where Cassiodorus has "Pius et Turpilianus" and the
242 Although the abbreviation "vc" is quite common in the manuscript fasti, the abbreviation "w cc," common in inscriptions, occurs only rarely in the manuscript fasti.
243 Although someone restored an incorrect consular pair, "Vetere et Valente consules" to fill out the missing year 130 in ms S of Victorius.
185
manuscripts of Victorius have "Pio et Corpiliano" or "Pio et Carpiliano;" in 97 where
Cassiodorus has "Fulvius et Vetus" and the manuscripts of Victorius have "Flavio et
Vetere;" in 236 where Cassiodorus has "Maximinus et Africanus" and the manuscripts of
Victorius read, variously "Maximiano (G) / Maximo III (L) / Maximo (S) et Africano";
and in 259, where Cassiodorus has "Aemilianus et Bassus" and Victorius, with a range of
odd readings, has "Marcelliano (G) / Narcello (L) / Marcello (S) et Basso."244 In all four
of these cases, Cassiodorus' readings agree with Prosper and are not attested in any of the
manuscripts of Victorius. The simplest explanation for these variants is that Cassiodorus
is a witness to a good tradition of Victorius, who copied the names correctly from
Prosper, in which case a new edition of Victorius will take Cassiodorus' readings more
seriously. However, all three of the manuscripts of Victorius with extensions of the
consular list descend from versions made before the 470's, and so these variant readings
in Victorius go back very far indeed.
A more complicated explanation would posit corrections by Cassiodorus based on
Prosper or corrections made to a copy of Victorius' list which Cassiodorus then used. But
it would be difficult to explain why corrections would be made through reference to some
of Prosper's readings (or those from other fasti), but not all.
There are further differences between Cassiodorus and Victorius which are not
attested to in Prosper, and which must therefore be attributed either to Cassiodorus'
particular copy of Victorius or to Cassiodorus' own corrections. In 311 all the manuscripts
244 In 46 Cassiodorus reads Asiaticus et Cornelius instead of Asiaticus et Silanus, but I believe this to be a copyist's error, a dittography, since the second consul of the year before in Cassiodorus (and Victorius) is Cornelius. The readings of L and S for this year (among others) tie the two manuscripts together as stemming from the same original.
of Victorius - G, L, S - and Prosper read "Maximiano VIII et Licinio. The first consul
is Galerius Valerius Maximianus, Augustus from 305 to 311, not the colleague of
Diocletian who retired in 305. Cassiodorus, however, reads "Maximo VIII." While there
is frequently confusion in the consular lists among names like Maximianus, Maximinus,
and Maximus, this looks like a correction by Cassiodorus or his source. Maximianus is
named Maximus from his first consulship in 294 regularly in Victorius and Cassiodorus,
and sometimes in some manuscripts of Prosper. He is thus, in Victorius and Cassiodorus,
never confused with Maximianus the colleague of Diocletian, and naming him Maximus
seems to be a way of distinguishing the two men. In 311, however, he has his proper
name in Victorius and Prosper, "Maximiano." While Cassiodorus' reading of "Maximus"
could be a copying accident, it is also possible that Cassiodorus changed the name
deliberately. Prosper, in 310, one year too early, had noted the death of Maximianus, and
this may have encouraged Cassiodorus (or his source) to change the name "Maximiano"
to "Maximo," both to make it match up with the previous consular years, and because the
author of the change correctly thought it impossible that Galerius Maximianus could hold
a consulship after he died.
Between 320 and 330 we see a similar regularization of consular iterations,
seemingly in defiance of Victorius' and Prosper's lists. In 320 Cassiodorus reads
"Constantinus VI et Constantius caes," which is what manuscript G of Victorius has,
though S and Prosper read, correctly, "Constantino VI et Constantino."246 A similar
245 S here reads "Lucinio." "Licinio" is incorrect. He had been consul for the first time in the east, though not recognized in the west, in 309. His name perhaps crept into Prosper's source in this year to explain his second consulship in 312, which is marked by an iteration in all the manuscripts of Victorius and Prosper. His name does not appear in this year in the Fasti Vindobonenses.
246 The confusion of "Constantinus," "Constantius," and even "Constans" in the written fasti is common.
187
situation prevails for the following year, where Cassiodorus reads "Crispus II et
Constantius caes II" (G reads "Crispo II et Constantio caes"), while S reads "Crispo et
Constantio" and Prosper reads "Crispo II et Constantino II." In 324, likewise,
Cassiodorus has "Crispus III et Constantius III" while Prosper and and L read "Crispo III
et Constantino III" and S reads "Crispo IIII et Constantino III."247 In 326 Cassiodorus has
"Constantinus VII et Constantius IIII." Cassiodorus' iterations are internally consistent,
but incorrect. None of the manuscripts of Victorius or Prosper has the iteration "IIII"
because, of course, this was the first consulship of Constantius the son of Constantine and
his name ought not to have been appearing in the fasti at all to this point. Manuscript S of
Victorius has the correct reading from Prosper, though without iterations, "Constantino et
Constantio." The following year is a difficult one: Flavius Constantius (no relation to the
imperial family) and Valerius Maximus were consuls and Cassiodorus has "Constantius V
et Maximus," confusing the consul for the year with the son of Constantine, and
continuing to regularize the iterations incorrectly. Prosper has "Constantino II et
Maximo" and is followed by S which reads "Constantino II et Maximo." G reads
"Constantio II et Maximo," getting the iteration from Prosper right, and the correct name,
though probably by accident. L reads "Constantio V et Maximo," which would appear to
support Cassiodorus, but the copyist of L is not to be trusted, and the confusion of "II" for
"V" in iterations (and vice versa) is a common one. Mommsen and Krusch print
"Constantio V et Maximo" here as the reading of Victorius, but this cannot be right. If
anything, it was "Constantio II et Maximo." Cassiodorus (or his source) has here, as
247 The iterations in S are a mess, with many corrections, additions and erasures. One wonders whether it has been corrected through recourse to a copy of Prosper.
before, regularized the iterations to make the list tidy.
The regularization of iterations continues in 329 and 330. In 329 Cassiodorus
reads "Constantinus VIII et Constantius VI," whereas the correct consuls were
Constantinus VIII and Constantius IV, which is what Prosper has. G has the correct
iteration but the wrong name, "Constantio HII." None of the manuscripts of Victorius or
of Prosper has the iteration VI for Constantius in this year, which, again, shows deliberate
regularization. In 330 Cassiodorus reads "Constantius VII et Symmachus," which is
completely different from Prosper, the manuscripts of Victorius, or the real consuls for
the year, who were Gallicanus and Symmachus:
Prosper: "Constantino III et Symmacho" G: "Constantio III et Simmaco" L: "Constan VI" S: "Constantio et Simacho"
Here again, with no authority, the iterations have been tidied up.248
To recap, Cassiodorus took Victorius' list from 29 CE to 457 CE almost exactly as
he found it. While there are a few very minor differences, noted above particularly in the
regularization of consular iterations and the corresponding confusion of similar names,
these are impossible to attribute to Cassiodorus with any certainty since they could just as
easily have been found in his copy of Victorius, whose different surviving copies vary
from one to the other. There must have been many more copies in the late fifth and early
sixth century, with as many different readings and orthographical variants. As well,
248 In 290 Prosper and, according to Krusch's edition, all the manuscripts of Victorius read "Diocletiano III et Maximiano II," (S, which I have checked, reads "Diocletiano III et Maximo II," though both iterations have been struck through), whereas Cassiodorus has "Diocletianus III et Maximianus III," which is correct. Mommsen's edition of Victorius, however, has "Maximiano III" for all the manuscripts of Victorius. If Krusch's reading is correct, this is another example of Cassiodorus, or his copy of Victorius, tidying up the consular iterations.
Cassiodorus' own manuscript could have been altered by scribes intent on "correcting"
the list.
It is easy to see why Cassiodorus chose an Easter calendar for his consular list. An
Easter calendar at the very least has two different dating systems: the date of Easter and
the consular name.249 Thus it is more difficult for a name to drop out than from a simple
list, and this may well have appealed to the methodical Cassiodorus. Why he did not
simply use Prosper's consuls we cannot say. He must have known from Victorius' preface
that the consuls were Prosper's, but there is no evidence that he had Prosper's epitome of
Jerome, and, as I will discuss below, it seems likely that he only had Prosper's work from
379 to 455, attached to a copy of Jerome's chronicle, and not Prosper's reworking of
Jerome from the crucifixion to 378.
Furthermore, as we will see, it is likely that Cassiodorus' version of Victorius
continued its consular list beyond 457. In the same way that Cassiodorus used Livy's
consuls and then the attached list of Aufidius Bassus, he may well have been determined
to use the more reliable Easter calendar from 29 CE as far as it would take him into the
fifth century and beyond.
Speaking more generally about Victorius, we must note here the variety of the
record of the consular names, even in the section prepared by Victorius himself, and even
in the very few manuscripts of Victorius which we have. Given that there must have been
hundreds of copies in circulation in Italy in the sixth century, we can assume that the
number of variants was large. We have seen how similar names are confused, iterations
249 Ms S of Victorius, in fact, has in its margins indiction years, AUC dates, imperial reigns, and dates from the incarnation, making it the most complete chronological compendium from the late Roman world we have.
are corrected (something we saw also in the Livian consulana), and how pairs are
inexplicably left out and replaced. A bureaucrat, and later a scholar, as careful as
Cassiodorus, and as concerned with precision in the smallest matters, would have torn his
hair out when he surveyed the mess, and we can understand Cassiodorus' desire to
"cleanse" the errors from the list.
After Victorius: Cassiodorus' Consuls from 458 to 519
Up to 457 Cassiodorus had constructed what he believed to be an accurate list of
consuls largely by relying on well-established and (as he thought) authoritative sources.
As he moved closer to his own time, however, it is perhaps possible that Cassiodorus
himself took more care with recording the consular names. The last sixty years of his
consular list show more clearly than the earlier years how seriously he took his assertion
in his preface that the "irregularity of the copyists" had been cleansed from his work.
As I suggested above, it seems reasonable to assume that Cassiodorus took his
consular list after 457 from a continuation of Victorius' Easter calendar. We would expect,
then, that Cassiodorus' list from 458 to 519 would exhibit some of the characteristics of
all the other continuations of Victorius, which are solidly western in their outlook, often
omitting eastern consuls, and frequently show signs at certain points that they were
maintained year by year. But this is not the case. Cassiodorus' list is very complete - the
most complete western consular list we have for the fifth and early sixth centuries.
This completeness would suggest considerable effort on the author's part in
working back over the years to make sure that his information was complete. The
191
manuscripts of the continuations of Victorius, however, were clearly kept up year-by-year
and, on the whole, not corrected after the names were entered the first time. The signs
which suggest year-by-year, or close to year-by-year maintenance are 1) the listing of the
western consul only, even when the name of the eastern consul can be shown to have
been known elsewhere in Italy, 2) the use of post-consular dates even when, again, the
(eastern) consuls became known in Italy later in the year, or even the following year, 3)
the occasional abbreviation "vc"(uir clarissimus) after the first of the two names,
followed by the eastern consul, which indicates that the western name was written first as
a single name, then the eastern was added when it became known later, since "vc" is only
employed with the name of a single consul, and 4) the occasional post-consular notation
followed by the actual consul for that year in the ablative, which suggests that the "pc"
was written into the list, and when the consul or consuls for the year became known, the
name or names were written beside it without the erasure of the post consulate. All the
continuations of Victorius, as well as the Fasti Parisini, the Paschale Campanum and the
Fasti Augustani show at least one of these signs before 484. Cassiodorus' list, however,
shows no such signs. It does, however, show several signs of revision and correction.
From 458 to 519, the abbreviation "Aug" is used every time an emperor is consul,
in 458, 462, 466, 471, 473, 474, 475, 479, 492, 497, 507 and 519. Before 457, where
Cassiodorus was relying on Victorius, the abbreviation occurs only five times, in 403,
411, 426, 440 and 451. The abbreviation seems in all sources to be rather more common
in the fifth century than in the fourth, but no other list is as regular as Cassiodorus' in
including it. The regularity suggests that the author himself went back over the years to
458 and inserted it, though it is not impossible that it was in his source.
Two individual years also show the deliberate hand of the author. In 519, the
emperor Justin, who was consul with Eutharic Cilliga, Theoderic's son-in-law, ought by
Cassiodorus' own standards, to come first in the record, but Cassiodorus puts the name of
his addressee and patron in the primary spot, including the abbreviation "D N,"
"Dominus Noster." Similarly, in 484, though Theoderic occupies the second spot in most
of the western lists, Cassiodorus swapped the names and gave Theoderic top billing.250
In addition to the more obvious signs of care taken by Cassiodorus, we must also
consider the undeniable fact that his list is by far the most complete source for consular
names in Latin or Greek between 458 and 519.251 Over the course of sixty-one years he
has all the western consuls, and misses only four eastern consuls, in 475, 482, 490 and
493. Cassiodorus can be forgiven not including the name of the emperor Zeno, who was
removed from his consulship of 475 after his exile in January by the usurper Basiliscus.
Many lists show confusion in 479 as to whether it was Zeno's second or third consulship
(he had been consul first in 469). The other three eastern consuls that Cassiodorus
missed, however, are all attested one way or another in the west and all three deserve
comment. The eastern consul for 482, Appalius Trocondes Illus, was known in the west
in the year he was consul. His name occurs in an inscription from Rome from October of
that year252 and appears in one of the continuations of Victorius (L) as "Traundio." Still,
250 One of the continuations of Victorius, G, also puts Theoderic first, which suggests that a new recension of it was produced between 492 and 526 in which the copyist, like Cassiodorus, put Theoderic first in this year.
251 As noted in CLRE, p. 52, though the first two years in which the authors claim Cassiodorus has no eastern consul are incorrect. The correct years are 475, 482, 490 and 493.
252 7Cf//?n.s.II4983.
193
he was clearly not well known in the west.253 Similarly in 490, the eastern consul,
Longinus, consul for the first time in 486, appears in three continuations of Victorius and
the Fasti Veronenses, but not in any contemporary inscriptions, though two post-consular
dates, "pc Longini II et Fausti vv cc" from Italy date from either the following year or
from 492.254 Longinus was clearly not entirely unknown in Italy. In 493, the eastern
consul Eusebius is only testified in the west in the Paschale Campanum, where the entry
"Albinus vc cons et Eusebius" indicates that his name was added sometime later. The
missing consul for 482, then, is simply an example of how difficult it might be for even
someone as resourceful as Cassiodorus to lay his hands on a good, complete list of
consuls or to get access to the names of consuls who had been disseminated officially or
unofficially in the west. In 490 and in 493, however, we might expect official propagation
of the consular names to have been difficult, if not completely unattempted, with all
hands and eyes in Italy occupied with the war between Odovacar and Theoderic.
After 493, however, Cassiodorus' list becomes impeccable, and its reliability is
displayed most clearly in the years from 496 to 519, where, in every year, Cassiodorus'
list is the only one of the written fasti, and occasionally of all the existing evidence from
the western or eastern empires, to record both consuls consistently.255 Below is a list of all
the western fasti which record all the years from 496 to 519: Cassiodorus; the three
continuations of Victorius: G, S and L, the Fasti Parisini (otherwise known as the Q
manuscript of Victorius); the Paschale Campanum; Marius of Avenches; the Fasti
253 Pope Simplicius' letters from that year list only Severinus as consul, Coll. Avell. 68-69. 254 CILV 5210* and CILV 5656*. 255 The consuls of 503 do not appear in the manuscripts of Cassiodorus, but I believe they must be
restored to the text. See above, pp. 119ff.
Vindobonenses posteriores; and the Consularia hafniensia. A cursory look shows how
much better Cassiodorus' list is than the rest. Of the years between 496 and 519, the
eastern consul was not promulgated in the west in most of these years (496, 497, 498,
499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 505, 506, 508, 511, 512, 513, 517, 518, 519). In 504, 509, 510,
514 and 516 the sole consul was a westerner. In 507 and 515, there is some evidence of
dissemination of the eastern consul.257
496 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
497 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
498 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
Paulus v.c. cons. pc Viatoris Viatore Eusebio v.c. cs pc pc Viatoris pc Viatoris Paulo pc Viatoris vc consulis
Anastasius Aug. II cons. it pc Viatoris Viator Paulo v.c. cs. II pc it pc Viatoris Viatoris Anastasio Aug II iterum pc Viatoris vc consulis
Paulinus et Iohannes Paulino vie cons Paulino Paulino v.c. cons Paulino Paulino Paulino Paulino vc cons Paulino vc consule
499 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
500 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
501 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
Iohannes v.c. cons. pc Paulini Paulino Iohanne v.c. cs pc pc Paulini pc Paulini pc vc cons Paulini pc Paulino vc consule
Patricius et Hypatius Patricio et Ypatio Patriluicio et Ipado iter v.c. cs Patricio et Ypatio iter, pc Paulini Patricio et Hypatio item pc Paulini item tertio Paulino vc consule
Avienus et Pompeius Avieno iuniore v.c. et Albileno Avieno v.c. cs Abieno Avieno Avieno et Pompeio Avieno et Pompeio
256 Paschale Campanum, Chron. min. 1: 274-339 and 745-750; Marius of Avenches, Chron. min. 2: 232-239; Fasti Vindobonenses posteriores, Chron. min. 1: 274-339, the Consularia Hafniensia, Chron. min. 1:274-339.
257 See CLRE for all these years.
Haf.
502 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
503 Cassiodorus
Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
504 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
505 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
506 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini
Avieno vc consule
Avienus iun. et Probus Avieno iuniore v. cl. cons. Abieno et Probo vc Albino v.c. cons Abieno Probo v.c. Avieno iuniore Avieno iuniore et Probo Abieno iun et Probo conss Avieno alio iun vc consule
Volusianus et Dexicrates (restored) Volusiano v.c. cons Volusiano Volusiano v.c. cons Volusiano Volusiano Volusiano Volusiano Volusiano vc consule
Caetheus v.ccons Cetthe v.c. cons Cato Citheo Ceteo Cithego Cetheo Cettego Ceteo vc consule
Theodorus et Sabinianus Thedoro v.c. cons Theodoro Theodora v.c. cons Theodoro Theodoro Sabiniano et Theudoro Theodoro Theudoro vc consule
Messala et Ariovinna Messala v.c. cons Thodoro Mesalla v.c. cons Messale
Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
507 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
508 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
509 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
510 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
511 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S
Messala Messala et Ariobinda Messala Messala vc consule
Anastasius Aug. Ill et Venantius Venantio v.c. cons Venado Venencio v.c. cons Venantio Venantio Venantio et Celere Venantio Venantio iun vc cons
Venantius iun. et Celer [omitted] Venantio II Venanti v.c. cons Venantio Basilio iuniore Basilio Venantio iuniore Venanti Inportuno alio Venantio vc consul
Importunus v.c. cons. Inportuno v.c. c Bassilio Inportuno v cos Inportuno Anastasio Inportuno Inportuno [omitted] Importuno vc consule
Boetius v.c. cons. Boetio vie. c Inportuno Boethio v.c. cs Boetio Boetio v.c. cs Boetio Boetio Boetio iun vc consule
Felix et Secundinus Felice vie. c Boetio
Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
512 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
513 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
514 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
515 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent.
Felice v.c. cs Felice Felice v.c. cs Felice et Secundino Felice Felice vc consule
Paulus et Muschianus Paulo et Musciano Felice Felices v.c. cs pc pc Felicis Paulo et Musciano [omitted] pc Felice vc consule
Probus et Clementinus Probo et Clementino Probo Probo Senatore v.c cs Probo Probo Clementino et Probo Probo Probo vc consule
Senator v.c. cons. Senatore v.c. cons Senatore Senatore v.c. cons Senatore Senatore Senatore Senatore Senatore vc consule
Florentius et Anthemius Florentio et Antemio Florantio Florencio v.c. cs Florentio Florentio Florentio et Anthemio
FVpost. Haf.
516 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
517 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
518 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
519 Cassiodorus
Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.
Florencio Florentio vc cons
Petrus v.c. cons. Petro v.c. cons pc Petro v.c. cons Petro Petro Petro Petro Petro vc cons
Anastasius et Acapitus Agapito v.c. cons Petro Acapito v.c. cons Agapito Agapito Anastasio et Agapito Agapito Agapito vc cons
Magnus v.c. cons. post c Agapiti Agapio Agapiti pc pc Agapiti Magno et Apollonare pc Agapiti pc Agapiti
dn. Eutharicus Cillica et Iustinus Aug. Iustino Aug. pc Iustino Aug. Euterico et Rusticiano Eutaricus Cillica Iustino et Euterio Eutarco Cilliga Fl. Eutharico Celica vc cons
Of the twenty-four years covered between 496 to 519 there are three years, 498,
507 and 508, where Cassiodorus includes both consuls, western and eastern, and no other
western list does;258 there are nine years, 496, 497, 499, 505, 506, 513 517, 518 and 519,
in which Cassiodorus and only one of the other lists have both consuls, and in five of
these cases, 505, 506, 517, 518 and 519, the other complete list is that of Marius of
Avenches, who wrote his chronicle over sixty years later. There are two years, 513 and
515 in which Cassiodorus has both consuls along with only two other lists.
This completeness testifies to careful work on the part of the compiler in making
sure the list was not only correct, but complete. The next question naturally is where and
how Cassiodorus got his good information. The authors of CLRE suggest, not
unreasonably, that Cassiodorus' access to official sources during his career as quaestor
under Theoderic would have made the compilation of his list easy enough.259 There is no
reason to doubt this in principle, but Cassiodorus, as far as we can tell, was not in
Ravenna between 511, the end of his quaestorship, and 523, when he was appointed
magister officiorum. It is more likely that he got the information privately by resorting to
private individuals and a variety of consular lists.260
The incompleteness and multiplicity of different entries in the fasti which we see
in the other western lists which have survived may well be examples of the "varietate
librariorum" which Cassiodorus complains of in the preface to his work, particularly if he
had also managed to acquire a Greek Eastern list, which would have omitted most
western consuls. We have compared Cassiodorus' list to the other examples of the list of
258 Marius of Avenches has the consuls for 508, Venantius and Celer, but his source confused them with the consul of 507, and so he has the two consular years switched, as does Victor of Tunnuna.
259 CLRE, 52. 260 See Burgess 1989, 151-153.
198
Victorius, as well as to the surviving consuls from Livy, and have found that there are few
noteworthy differences. However, as we have seen, most of the differences between his
fasti and other fasti occur in the twenty-five or so years immediately preceding the
composition of the Chronica. It makes sense that these years, roughly the dates of
Cassiodorus' own public life, were the ones which he felt a need to, and was in a position
to, correct. He would certainly not have had the resources to correct consuls before that
time.
Cassiodorus himself was able to find the information about the eastern consuls,
and it must have been available to others as well. The two halves of the empire continued
to nominate one consul each through Theoderic's reign, so there must have been
consultation between the courts: it is clear that Eutharic, for instance, was granted the
consulship only with the eastern emperor Justin's assent.261 While it seems fairly clear that
the court at Ravenna had stopped promulgating the names of both consuls, it is also clear
that the public and the librarii stopped being interested in who the eastern consul was
since it was not necessary information.
In the century before the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom, the manuscript fasti
more regularly include both consuls than the inscriptional record because the written fasti
can be updated and corrected, whereas inscriptions, papyri and letters cannot. There is no
time limit on corrections to the written fasti if new information comes along and there is a
great deal of evidence from all centuries of the empire for random corrections and
changes to individual years. The inclusion only of the western consuls of the western
lists, then, could be due both to the failure of the central administration to proclaim and
261 VariaelA.
disseminate the names of the eastern consuls (and sometimes the western ones, too), and
to the fact that it was unnecessary on the whole for the keepers of the lists, whether
private individuals, clerics or booksellers, to update the lists as new information became
available.262 However this may be, given the state of the other lists which have survived
from the same time, Cassiodorus is to be commended for his evident efforts to compile a
list which included both consuls for each year.
The Continuation of Cassiodorus' List
The surviving manuscripts of the Chronica contain continuations of Cassiodorus'
consuls to 559. The end date suggests that this continuation was extracted from Victorius'
Cursus paschalis, which ended in 559, and appended to the manuscript of the
Chronica}^ Mommsen did not believe that the continuation was by Cassiodorus himself,
and that is likely the case, but the list shows similarities with Cassiodorus' work in the
last part of his Chronica.
First, the continuation was clearly meant to function as a continuation of
Cassiodorus' work, since the consuls are all recorded in the nominative. The continuation
is extraordinary in regularly including the names of both western and eastern consuls. Of
the twenty-two years between 520 and 541, the last years for which consuls were named
(I omit the years from 542 to 559 because they are all post-consular dates counted from
Basilius' last consulship in 541), the continuation of Cassiodorus' Chronica has both
262 Even Theoderic's own letters testify to a lack of knowledge of the eastern consul. A letter of Theoderic to the senate dated to March 11 of either 507 or 508 (not in CLRE) records only "Venantio vc consule." There were western consuls named Venantius in both years, but in 507 the eastern consul was the emperor Anastasius, and in 508 the magister officiorum Celer. Celer appears to have been proclaimed late even in the east, however, so perhaps this letter is best dated to 508 rather than 507.
263 As is the case with the Fasti Parisini. See Appendix 1.
consuls right almost every time. The other western lists (the three continuations of
Victorius, G, S and L, of which L breaks off after 522; the Fasti Parisini; the Paschale
Campanum; Marius of Avenches; and the Fasti Vindobonensesposteriores, which
become spotty after 534) generally have the western consuls correctly recorded, which is
normal. Below is a list of the continuation of Cassiodorus along with the western lists
mentioned above.
520 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
521 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
522 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
523 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp.
Rusticius et Vitali augg conss Rusticiano et Vitaliano [omitted] Rusticiano et Vitalio [omitted] Rusticio Rusticio et Vitaliano Rustico
Valerius et Iustinianus wcc Valerio Valeriano Valerio Valerio Valerio Iustino II et Valerio Valerio
Symmachus et Boetius vv cc Symmacho et Boetio Simacho et Boetio Symacho et Boethio vv cc Symmacho et Boetio Symmacho et Boetio Symmacho et Boetio Symmacho et Boetio
Maximus vc Maximo vc pc Maximo II et Paterio Maximo
Marius Avent. FVpost.
524 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
525 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
526 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
527 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp.
Maximo Maximo
Opilio et Iustinus augg vv cc Opilione vc cons Maximo Opilione Opilione Iustino et Opilione Opilione et Filoximo
Probus et Filoxenus vv cc Probo iuniore vc c Probo iuniore Probo iuniore Probo iuniore Probo iuniore et Philoxeno Probo et Iustiniano aug
Olybrius vc Olybrio iuniore vc c Olibrio Olybrio Olybrio iuniore Olibrio Olybrio et Hilaro
Maburtius vc Mavortio vc c Mauritio Mavortio Mavortio
Manus Avent. FVpost.
528 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
529 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
530 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
531 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
532 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
533 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini
Mavurtio Maburtio et Vittelliano
Iustinianus aug II vc pc Mavorti Mauritio pc Mavortio pc Mavorti Iustino pc Maburti et Iustiniano II
Decius vc Decio iun vc cons Decia Decio Decio iun Decio iun Decio iun et Vitelliani
Lampadius et Orestis vv cc Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Horeste
pc Lampadi et Orestis vv cc pc Lampadi Lampadio II et Oreste pc Lampadio et Oreste pc supra scriptorum pc Lampadi et Orestis pc Lampadi et Horestis
it pc Lampadi et Orestis vv cc it pc Lampadi Lampadio III Lampadio III et Oreste III pc supra scriptorum item pc Lampadi et Orestis item pc Lampadi et Horestis
Iustinianus aug III cons tertio pc Lampadi Lampadio IIII Lampadio IIII et Oreste IIII
Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
534 Cassiodorus
Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
535 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
536 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp.
Marius Avent. FVpost.
537 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
538 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini
Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
539
et iterum pc supra scriptorum Iustiniano aug III et iterum pc superiorum
Iustinianus aug IIII et Paulinus conss Paulino vc cons Paulino Paulino iuniore Paulino iuniore Paulino iun Paulino
Bilisarius vc pc Paulini Paulino II et Basillar Paulino II et Bilisario I pc Paulini Belesario pc Paulini [between 538 and 539]
pc Bilisari vc iterum pc Paulini Paulino III et Basillar Paulino III et Bilisario II iterum pc Paulini quod est consulatu Vilisari pc Belesari [omitted]
it pc Bilisari vc tertio pc Paulini Paulino IIII et Basillar III Paulino IV et Bilisario III pc Belisari item pc Belesari [omitted]
Iohannis vc Iohanne vc cons Paulino V et Iohanne Paulino IIII et ioanne paulino V ioanne II Iohanne Iohanne et Iohanne
Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
540 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini
Appius vc post cons Iohannis Paulino VI et Apione Paulino VI et Appione Appione vc cons Appione et Apione
Iustinus iun vc bis it cons Iohannis Paulino VII et Apione Paulino VII et Apione II
Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
541 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.
Iustino Iustino [omitted]
Basilius vc tertio pc Iohannis Basilio Basilio Basilio iuniore Basilio [omitted]
For the eight years 522, 523, 526, 527, and 529-532, when the only consuls were
westerners, there is uniformity among all the western lists. But for the remaining fourteen
years when there were eastern consuls, the picture is the same as in the years following
the accession of Theoderic - a haphazard record of eastern consuls in all the lists except
Cassiodorus'. Of the fourteen years, the continuation of Cassiodorus alone has the correct
consuls for two, 521 and 534. For six years, 524, 525, 533, 535, 536, and 537, only the
continuation of Cassiodorus and Marius of Avenches have the correct consuls.
The continuation of Cassiodorus shows the same attention to abbreviations and
titles as before, but with some differences, and these differences suggest that the work
was not Cassiodorus' since they are at variance with his usual practice. There are careful
notations of "aug" where appropriate, and of "vc" in the case of single consular names.
In contrast to the pre-519 names, however, those from 520 on almost all the double
names have "vv cc." As well, the abbreviation "cons" is omitted from single names,
whereas it appears in the single names in Cassiodorus' list before 519. There are several
oddities as well, which could not be the work of Cassiodorus. In the record for 524
"Opilio et Iustinus augg vv cc," the emperor Justin is not first in the pair, though
Cassiodorus was very careful in the material between 458 and 519 always to place the
203
emperor in the primary spot, except in the case of his addressee. This would suggest that
his name was added late, though clearly by someone who knew he was the emperor.
Furthermore, the abbreviation "augg vv cc" implies that both men were Augusti and viri
clarissimi, but only Opilio was a vir clarissimus, and only Justin was Augustus. The
compiler of the continuation does not seem to have known what the abbreviations meant.
Similarly, in 520, the abbreviations "augg vv cc" follow the two names, when neither was
an Augustus.264 In 528, Justinian is listed as vir clarissimus as well, which is not an
appropriate designation for the emperor.
The evident care for accuracy which went into preparing the continuation, and the
consistency in the recording of the names testify to a bureaucratic mind with access to
good information, or at least with the will to find out the information, but the differences
in abbreviations indicate that the continuation was not by Cassiodorus.265 The fact that
this list, like the lists in Victorius' Cursuspaschalis, ended in 559 shows that his list was
updated at least in part through reference to one of the many copies and continuations of
Victorius which circulated in the west during this period.
Overview of Cassiodorus' Sources for the Fasti
The previous four sections on Cassiodorus' sources for his fasti have dealt with a
disparate set of issues and problems stemming from the different sources which he used
to construct his own fasti. Despite the different focus each source requires, several things
deserve to be underscored which are common to all. First, fasti were clearly not treated in
264 I wonder whether "Vitali augg" is a misreading of "Vitalianus," the correct second consul for the year, but the other mistakes in the abbreviations suggests otherwise.
265 Kaufmann (1876) 395-397.
204
antiquity the way literary texts were treated. The lists saw many different uses across a
wide cross-section of public and private spheres, and not everyone who used or copied a
list was concerned with recording the list exactly as it appeared in the original.
The popularity of Victorius' list stemmed, at least in part, from the fact that there
was another chronological scheme, the date of Easter, built into it which could be used as
a check on the consular list: new consuls could be written into a space prepared for them.
Cassiodorus worked hard to draw up a list which was complete for the twenty-five years
before the end of his work, and presumably believed that by attaching authoritative
names to the list (including his own, no doubt), he could go some way to solving the
problem of the differences among all the lists, or at the very least of averting criticism for
the quality of the list from the mid-fifth century and before. It is possible to see that he
worked carefully in the years of the last half of the fifth century and early sixth to make
sure his list was as complete as it could be, under the circumstances.
In arranging imperial reigns alongside the consular list, as we will see he did in
the section which follows, he established a second firm dating system to work hand-in-
hand with the first, and he continued to line up the imperial reigns beside the consular
names until the reign of Anastasius. In being alert to Cassiodorus' care for chronology, we
can see through the panegyric of the preface and the last few pages of the book, and
understand Cassiodorus' work as an attempt to establish a chronological framework
which would allow his readers to visualize and comprehend the length of the history of
the world, and in particular the Roman empire.
205
Assigning Jerome's Imperial Reigns and Events to Consular Years
Cassiodorus' sources for the Republic and the years after 457 included events
dated by consular year. For this reason, dating the events was not an issue for him; he
could simply follow his source. But this was not the case with Jerome, who dated his
chronicle for the imperial period by imperial reign. Cassiodorus used Jerome extensively
for historical notes between Creation and the first consuls, and later, after he ceased to
use the epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus, for historical notes between the crucifixion
and the end of Jerome's chronicle in 378.266 Cassiodorus had used Victorius' list as his
chronological framework for this period, however, and was then faced with the task of
adapting Jerome's historical entries, including Jerome's dating system of imperial years,
to his consular list. Cassiodorus inserted those which he found in Jerome into the list of
consuls which he had prepared from Victorius. It is this dovetailing of the two
chronological frameworks which I will discuss in what follows.267
As we have seen, Cassiodorus began drawing on Jerome from 49 B.C., the year of
Pompey's flight from Italy and the year before the first year of Julius Caesar's reign.268 He
then inserted imperial reigns and the events within them into his consular list. His precise
procedure is unclear: he may have inserted the imperial reigns first before returning to his
starting point to insert the more diverse historical notices, or he may have done both as he
went through the years. The mistakes that he made point to the latter possibility, but the
fact that his consuls for the year 378 C.E., the end of Jerome's chronicle and the
266 Though he did use Jerome for regnal years from Julius Caesar forward. 267 The same task had been undertaken by Prosper, and is also evident in the margins of manuscript S of
Victorius, where someone has adapted imperial reigns drawn from Jerome to Victorius' consular list. 268 Jerome had, as was not unusual, considered him the first emperor and had numbered him accordingly.
206
beginning of Prosper's, match perfectly with each other, points to at least some planning
before the final copy was produced.
What is clear, as we will see, is that Cassiodorus combined the two dating
schemes systematically, if a little hastily. I will treat Cassiodorus' method of inserting the
imperial reigns and of inserting the other notices from Jerome separately because the two
processes are more easily comprehended discretely.
A Note on the Text of Jerome's Chronicle
Before discussing Cassiodorus' inclusion of historical notices into his list, a note
must be made about the text of Jerome. All references in this work to Jerome are made to
Helm's text, a necessary but slightly artificial practice, since we have no idea what sort of
text of Jerome Cassiodorus himself had. Jerome's lengthy and difficult chronicle lent
itself to frequent errors in copying. Thus we find that, depending on the manuscript,
almost every event in Jerome's chronicle can be found in at least two different years.269
Therefore, if Cassiodorus is off by one year, or even two, in his dating within a reign,
there is no way of telling whether he or the manuscript that he used was at fault. So, for
instance, in Hadrian's reign, Helm's text has the building of the temple of Rome and
Venus and the construction of many buildings in Athens in the fifteenth and sixteenth
years of Hadrian's reign, respectively (200d, 200g). Cassiodorus places them in the
fourteenth and fifteenth years (789, 791). However, three of Helm's manuscripts (A, P, N)
show the events placed in the years in which they are found in Cassiodorus. The
renaming of Jerusalem, however, is placed by Cassiodorus (797), Helm's text (201e) and
269 See almost any page from Helm's text.
207
the above three manuscripts in the twentieth year of Hadrian's reign. There is no one
manuscript which Helm uses that corresponds in all cases to the dates that appear in
Cassiodorus work.270
In only two cases are Cassiodorus' events off by two years or more from Helm's
text. Lucius Verus' death is placed in the eleventh year of his and Marcus' reign (838),
whereas Jerome put it in the ninth. But Jerome says specifically that "quidam putant XI'7
"some believe in the eleventh year."271 The Gallic Chronicle of 511 also used Jerome and
also put Verus' death in the eleventh year.272 While it is not impossible that Cassiodorus'
manuscript of Jerome had this entry opposite the eleventh year, there is no manuscript of
Jerome that has it there. Eutropius, whom Cassiodorus used occasionally to correct
Jerome, places Verus' death in the eleventh year of his reign as well (8.10.4), and
Cassiodorus may have followed him in this case. The second case is the dating of the
celebration of the thousandth birthday of Rome in Philip's reign (949) where Cassiodorus
puts the event three years later than does Helm's text.273
The Consular List and Imperial Reigns
Cassiodorus drew primarily on Jerome for the length of imperial reigns, and in the
vast majority of cases his numbers are exactly the same as those of Jerome. For instance,
in his note on Claudius' accession, Jerome says that Claudius reigned for thirteen years,
eight months and twenty-eight days, and he assigns him fourteen regnal years.
270 Mommsen 1892, 368, suggests that Cassiodorus used a manuscript very similar to Leidensis Scaligeri 14, Helm's F, but that manuscript is different in many ways from Cassiodorus' work.
271 Helm 205k. 272 MGH: AA 9: 632-666. 273 Discussed above, pp. 118ff.
208
Cassiodorus follows Jerome exactly: in his note on Claudius' accession, he records the
length of Claudius' reign from Jerome and assigns fourteen consular pairs to his reign.
When he does depart from Jerome, he does so in three different ways: 1) when he found
fuller or better information in Eutropius, he sometimes substituted Eutropius' numbers for
Jerome's; 2) on several occasions, even though the number is the same as Jerome's in the
note on the imperial accession, he assigned a different number of consular years from
Jerome, 3) on two occasions he deliberately shortened imperial reigns in order to make
his imperial years coincide with his consular list and 4) in two cases, for the reigns of
Augustus and Aurelian, Cassiodorus counted a half year as a whole year, whereas Jerome
had not.274 There are also some numbers at variance with Jerome which stem either from
copyists' errors during the recopying of Cassiodorus' work or from the copy of Jerome he
was using. It seems best in what follows to adopt a chronological approach, beginning
with Cassiodorus' initial adoption of Jerome and following his procedure through to 378.
This approach demonstrates most clearly Cassiodorus' methods, the measures he took to
correct himself, and, for whatever reason, his failure to revise his work even after it was
obvious that he had made mistakes.
The synchronization of Jerome's imperial reigns with the consular years was a
procedure teeming with difficulties and potential for error. The following chart lists
Jerome's imperial years, as well as Cassiodorus' imperial years and the number of consuls
he assigned to each emperor. I have noted with bold type the places where Cassiodorus is
at variance with Jerome.
274 Mommsen's chart (1894, 116) counts nine places where Cassiodorus counts a different number of years from Jerome, but he includes Tiberius, since he did not restore the consuls in the year of the crucifixion. He also includes Valentinian/Valens on the basis of a faulty edition of Jerome: Jerome gives them fourteen years, not fifteen, and so there is no discrepancy with Cassiodorus.
209
Emperor
Julius Caesar Augustus Tiberius Caligula Claudius Nero Galba Otho Vitellius Vespasian Titus Domitian Nerva Trajan Hadrian Antoninus Pius M. Aurelius Commodus Pertinax Severus Caracal la Macrinus Elagabalus Alexander Maxim inus Gordianus Philip Decius Gallus and Volusianus Valerianus and Gallienus Claudius Aurelianus Tacitus Probus Cams Diocletian Constantine Sons of Constantine Julian
Cassiodorus: Regnal Years
y/m/d 4/7 56/6 23 3/10 13/8/28 13/7/28
-n -/3/5 -/8/1 9/11/22 2/2 15/5 1/4 19/6/15276
20/10/29277
21 19 13 -/6 18 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1/3 2/4 15 1/9 5/6 -/6 6/3 2 20 30/10 24/5/23 1
Cassiodorus: Consuls
5 57 2 3 2 7 5
4 14 14
2
10 2 16 2 20 21 21 19 13 1 18 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1 2 15 2 6 1 6 2 21 31 24 1
Jerome: Regnal Years
y/m/d 4/7 56/6 23 3/10 13/8/28 13/7/28 -7 -3 -9/11/22 2/2 15/5 1/4 19/6 21 22/3 19/1 13 -16 18 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1/3 2/4 15 1/9 5/6 -16 6/4 2 20 30/10 24/5/13 1/8
Jerome: Years assigned
5 56 23 4 14 14
-
10 2 16 1 19 21 23 19 13 1 17 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1 2 15 2 5 1 6 2 21 31 24 2
275 With the consulship of the two Gemini restored. See above, pp. 123ff.. 276 Cassiodorus took the more precise number for the length of Trajan's reign from Eutropius, 8.5.2. 277 As with Trajan, immediately above, Cassiodorus took the more precise number for the length of
Hadrian's reign from Eutropius, 8.7.3.
210
Jovian Valentinian
-/8 14/5
1 14
-/8 14/5
1 14
Since the beginnings and ends of imperial reigns do not coincide with the
beginnings of consular years, Cassiodorus had to adjust and guess as best he could. His
method was to assign one pair of consuls for every regnal year, and sometimes to assign
one pair to a fraction of a year. Thus, for instance, Augustus, who reigned for fifty-six
years and six months, gets fifty-seven pairs of consuls, whereas Jerome had assigned him
only fifty-six years. With the exception of Titus, Cassiodorus counted every partial year
as a full year up to the reign of Decius, and this led him into serious difficulties which
could have been avoided had he simply followed Jerome's actual regnal years.
Cassiodorus found 211 consular pairs in his fasti from the beginning of Julius Caesar's
reign to 161 ;278 Jerome's imperial years add up to 208 years. The difference was
inevitably going to cause problems, and in the end he had to truncate Antoninus Pius'
reign by two years in order to make the consulship of the "duo Augusti" coincide with
161 CE, the beginning of Marcus Aurelius' and Verus' reigns. Cassiodorus knew from
Eutropius that the elevation of two equal Augusti did not occur before the death of
Antoninus Pius, but was an innovation of the subsequent regime. He includes that
information in his note on the succession of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius: "usque ad hoc
tempus singuli Augusti fuerunt" / "up to this time there were individual Augusti. "279 He
was therefore compelled to put the end of Antoninus Pius' life in his fifth consulship
278 The year 161 is a crucial year, the consulship of the "duo Augusti," Marcus Aurelius and Verus. At that point the regnal years and the consular years had to match up.
279 "Tumque primum Romana res publica duobus aequo iure imperium administrantibus paruit, cum usque ad eum singulos semper habuisset Augustos " / "Then for the first time the Roman state submitted to two Augusti wielding power with equal authority, though up to him [Marcus Aurelius], it had always had individual Augusti" (Eutropius 8.9.2).
before the two Augusti were consuls.
To make the 208 regnal years fit the 211 pairs of consuls, Cassiodorus counted
Augustus' extra six months as a full year, and added two more full years by giving Galba,
Otho and Vitellius two pairs of consuls.280 If he had stopped there, his count would have
worked out, but he assigned two years to Nerva instead of one as Jerome had done, to
cover the one year and four months of Nerva's reign, and he assigned twenty years to
Trajan, instead of nineteen as Jerome had done, to account for the nineteen years, six
months and fifteen days of Trajan's reign. His consistency in assigning an extra pair of
consuls for each fractional year caused him to have to truncate Antoninus Pius' reign by
two years to make the consular list fit with the accession of Marcus Aurelius and Verus.
But Cassiodorus' mistakes were worse than merely the lengthening and truncation
of imperial reigns. Victorius' fasti have many omissions and additions in the years before
161, and Cassiodorus was forced to ignore the fact, which he must have known, that an
imperial consulship had to come in the year of accession, the only reliable guide for
linking the two dating systems. So the quality of his list resulted in the consular years
getting serious out of sync with the regnal years.281 We first see this when Caligula is
280 In Jerome, the reigns of Galba and Otho come under the fourteenth year of Nero's reign. Jerome gives the lengths of Galba's and Otho's reigns as seven months and three months, respectively. He gives no number for Vitellius, nor does he even indicate that he had been emperor. Cassiodorus consulted Eutropius on this question and discovered not only that Otho had, in fact, reigned for ninety-five days, which he converts to three months and five days, but that Vitellius reigned for eight months and one day.He quite rightly judged that Jerome was in error, and that the events of eighteen months could not be squeezed into one year. He therefore indicated that he intended the reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius to be considered as taking place under the first and second consulships of Vespasian and Titus. Referring to the three short-lived emperors, he writes "Qui omnes infra scriptos duos cons<ulatus?> tenuerunt" / "All of whom held the two consular years written below" (693). The two consular years he means are Vespasian and Titus and Vespasian II and Titus II. Vespasian and Titus held only one consulship together at this time, Vespasian's second and Titus' first (70). The result was the displacement of the beginning of Vespasian's reign into the following year, two years too late.
281 It is impossible to speak here meaningfully of historical accuracy. Victorius' consular list (and Prosper's which was the basis of Victorius') is so execrable that discussing Cassiodorus success or lack
212
consul for the second time in the year after his death (649). Then, in the reign of
Vespasian, Cassiodorus has placed the note on Vespasian's accession two years following
his consulship with Titus, three years too late, in part because he had given Galba, Otho
and Vitellius two consular pairs.
Over the course of the reigns of Domitian and Nerva, Cassiodorus' consular list
loses ground to the imperial reigns. Domitian, as the chart shows, is given sixteen
consular pairs for his fifteen years and five months of rule. At this point, as noted above,
if Cassiodorus had followed Jerome's regnal years, he would have hit his target of 161
without further problems. But Nerva, though he reigned for only one year and four
months, is given two consular pairs.282
Two extra consular pairs in his list over the course of Trajan's reign, "Senecio et
Sura" after the consuls of 103 and "Clarus et Alexander" as well as the extra year given
to Trajan, confuse things further. By the time of Hadrian's succession Cassiodorus'
imperial years are badly out of step with his consular list, with Hadrian coming to the
throne two years after his first consulship, when in fact he entered into his first consulship
on the January after he succeeded Trajan in 117.283 Hadrian reigned for almost exactly 21
years, and gets 21 consular pairs, but Cassiodorus falls four years out of step because his
thereof by a simple match of historically accurate consular years with the accession dates of emperors is a pointless exercise. From the consulship of the two Gemini to that of the two Augusti, when the list becomes much better, Cassiodorus should have 129 consular years, whereas he in fact has 132, which is remarkably low given the number of errors in the list.
282 If we look at this problem in terms of actual consulships, the situation seems worse than it is. Cassiodorus' list from Victorius leaves out the consuls of 80 and 87, and although there is an additional consular pair, "Sabinus et Antoninus" right before the consuls of 98, the result is that in actual terms, Cassiodorus' imperial years are four years ahead of his consular list, with Trajan succeeding Nerva the year before his fifth consulship, when in fact he succeeded him during his second.
283 The consuls at Hadrian's succession in Cassiodorus are "Servilius et Fulvius," a slightly altered version of the real consuls for that year, L. Catilius Severus Iulianus Claudius Reginus II and T. Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus.
list lacked the consuls of 130.
In the reign of Antoninus, only three interpolated consular pairs save Cassiodorus
from complete disaster. The consuls of 221, "Gratus et Seleucus" for some reason follow
those of 145, and at the very end, two fake consulships, "Antoninus V et Aurelius III"
and "pc Antonini V et Aureli III" give him some extra space. But he was still one or two
consular pairs short of what he needed. Cassiodorus resolved this problem by arbitrarily
shortening Jerome's record of the reign of Antoninus, from 22 years, 3 months to 21
years.
There was nothing in his consular list, Jerome or Eutropius that could have
prevented him from reorganizing his work when he realized any mistakes he had made.
He might have gone back and assigned one less consular pair to any two of Nerva, Trajan
or Domitian, or eliminated the extra regnal years of Galba, Otho and Vitellius. But for
Cassiodorus, as I discussed above, the important part of his chronicle was the consular
list, not the imperial reigns, so perhaps his stated concern for historical authority
extended only as far as the consular names. Given the choice between the consuls and
Jerome's regnal years something had to give and he decided to stick with the consular
list, which was in fact the wrong choice. Perhaps the fact that consuls work better and are
easier for numbering years than regnal years caused him to make this choice.
After 160, Victorius' list becomes much better, but Cassiodorus, apparently either
recognizing his mistakes in the years before 160, or realizing that the number of imperial
reigns simply could not be fit into the number of consuls he had, also shows himself
284 As I noted above, p. 184, Cassiodorus is missing the consuls of 130 because both Prosper and Victorius left them out.
prepared to forgo assigning a consular pair to a partial imperial year. The inexact fit
between the regnal years and consuls before 161 forced him to search out ways of
accounting for that disagreement. Once the fasti became more accurate he could follow
regnal years and consuls exactly but now had to explain why his method differed from
before. We see this in the reigns of Decius (953), and of Gallus and Volusianus (956).
Jerome assigned them one year, three months and two years, four months respectively,
but only one and two years of historical notations. Although, as we have seen above,
Cassiodorus' tendency had been to assign a consular pair to a partial imperial year,
sometimes contradicting Jerome, here he not only followed Jerome, but explained
himself both times: "his successit Decius, qui regnavit anno I mensibus tribus, quantum
ad consules autem annum I" / "Decius succeeded these emperors and reigned for one year
and three months, but as far as consuls are concerned, only one year" (953) and "cui
successit Gallus cum Volusianus filio, qui regnaverunt annis II et mensibus IIII, quantum
ad consulatum autem annis tantum duobus" / "Gallus succeeded Decius with Volusianus
his son and they reigned for two years and four months, but as far as the consulship is
concerned, only two years" (956). Apart from the reign of Pertinax, who reigned for six
months and is given one consular pair (as he is in Jerome as well), these are the first
reigns after Antoninus Pius' reign which include partial years. It seems that the mistake
he made earlier prompted him to follow Jerome more carefully.
Between 161 and 378 (inclusive) Cassiodorus found 219 consular pairs,285 and
Jerome has 218 regnal years (counting the divided year twenty of Diocletian as two
years). It ought to have been possible for Cassiodorus to successfully integrate the two
285 With the consuls of 297 restored. See above, p. 120ff..
215
lists without running into too much trouble, but again, we see him truncating a reign, this
time Julian's. Jerome had given Julian 1 year and 8 months of rule, and had assigned him
two years. If Cassiodorus had given Julian two consulships, the result would have been
that the single consulship of the emperor Jovian would have preceded his reign, and the
following first consulship of Valentinian and Valens would have preceded their first year
in power. Part of his difficulties lay in the fact that he added an extra year to Severus'
reign since he did not realize that Jerome started counting Severus' regnal years from year
two, not year one, and he gave Aurelian six years instead of following Jerome's five. Still,
the two sets of dates fit together much better in these years for several reasons:
Cassiodorus' consular list is much better, with only two interpolated consular pairs, one
incorrect pair, and one missing pair,286 and so he is never off by more than two years.
Three other differences between Jerome's and Cassiodorus' regnal years should be
mentioned in closing. Jerome gives Marcus Aurelius nineteen years and one month,
whereas Cassiodorus gives him only nineteen years. The reign of Probus is shortened by
one month from six years and four months in Jerome to six years and three months in
Cassiodorus. And that of the sons of Constantine is increased by ten days, from twenty-
four years, five months and thirteen days in Jerome to twenty-four years, five months and
twenty-three days in Cassiodorus. There is no existing source from which Cassiodorus
could have adopted any of these changes, and even if they were deliberate changes, they
make no difference to how Cassiodorus would have treated the reigns if he had not
changed them. The changes are more likely a result of scribal error in Cassiodorus' copy
286 Interpolated: "Annianus et Maximus," after the consuls of 226, "Constantius IIII et Constans III," after the consuls of 344. Incorrect: "Gratus et Seleucus," taking the place of the consuls of 230 (one of three appearances of this pair in the list). Missing: "Tacitus and Aemilianus," the consuls of 276.
of Jerome or in the tradition of his chronicle.
In adapting Jerome's imperial years and historical events to Victorius' consular
list, Cassiodorus was nothing if not dogged. His practice of assigning partial regnal years
a full consular year caused difficulties. Still, when he changed his procedure, as he did
when assigning fewer consular pairs than years reigned, he alerted his reader. At
Antoninus Pius' and Julian's reigns, Cassiodorus came upon points where he had to alter
Jerome's information in order to squeeze the fasti and the regnal years together. As I
noted above, though he clearly noticed the errors he had made, he did not go back to
correct them. It is not possible to explain this away, except to say that it underscores
Cassiodorus' stated purpose in his preface of providing a good consular list. The list took
precedence over the lengths of imperial reigns. Perhaps, for Cassiodorus, doing a perfect
job with a secondary chronological scheme was unnecessary.
Placing Historical Events relative to Imperial Reigns and Consular Years
After he had inserted the imperial reigns into the consular list, Cassiodorus
inserted the events which he found in Jerome's chronicle, supplemented with a few from
Eutropius (681, 714, 955, 1061). He placed the events relative to the beginning of each
reign, and not relative to the whole time-line or to the consular dates (since he did not
know the consular dates of the events he included). Thus, for instance, within Trajan's
reign all the events are spaced as they are in Jerome. Jerome says that Trajan triumphed
over the Dacians and Scythians in his fourth year and Cassiodorus puts the event in his
fourth year (745); Jerome puts the stationing of a fleet in the Red Sea in Trajan's sixth
217
year and so does Cassiodorus, and so on. On the occasions when Cassiodorus gives an
emperor more consular years than Jerome did regnal years, he counted the extra year at
the end of each reign so as not to disturb the order of events within the reign.
Conclusion
Cassiodorus' achievement was considerable and, though Prosper had done it in the
mid-fourth century, comparatively rare. He hunted out different sources that allowed him
to put together a new consular list and did an extremely good job of the fifth and sixth
century consuls, at a time when good information cannot have been easy to get. He then
added, alongside, a secondary chronological scheme of imperial years from Julius Caesar
to his day. Of the consularia we have, nothing on this scale had been attempted before.
The fact that in many cases we can determine the reasons why Cassiodorus dated a
particular event to a particular year are a testament to his dogged, if a bit ham-handed,
approach. But the consular list was clearly not the only part of his work upon which
Cassiodorus spent his time and care. The following chapter turns to Cassiodorus' sources
for his historical entries, sources which he does not mention by name. Some of them are
easy to identify, while others must be teased out from the Chronica itself.
Chapter 4: Historiography
Introduction
As I noted above, Cassiodorus in his supputatio points only to the authority of the
chronological sources on which he drew in his work. But we can assume that most
readers in his own time (as well as in ours) were more interested in the historical
lemmata. Cassiodorus was well aware of this and says in his preface that he has obeyed
Eutharic's orders and drawn up trustworthy fasti "quatenus vester animus per inlustres
delectatus eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem" / "so that
your mind, taking delight in the famous events, may run through the very long age of the
world in pleasing brevity" (1). Eutharic is meant to read the events recorded in the
Chronica, but no one expects him to dwell on the names of the consuls.
That said, Cassiodorus mentions nowhere that for his historical notes he used the
Livian-Aufidian consularia for the Republic, that he used Jerome from the beginning of
the world to 510 BCE and again between 49 BCE and 378 CE, or Prosper between 379 and
455, that he drew on Italian consularia after 455, or that he used Eutropius for the whole
period between the foundation of the Republic through to the reign of Diocletian. For
Cassiodorus, as he makes clear in his preface, the events were subordinate to his list, but,
since chronology was his chief concern, he was careful in his treatment of the strictly
historical material. We have seen in the above chapter that he adapted Jerome's historical
notes to his consular list between 49 BCE and 378 CE. We will see in what follows that
Cassiodorus displayed a conservative approach when adapting historical material to his
consular list. For him, maintaining the integrity of his consular list was the most
important thing, but careful attention to his use of very few historical sources remained
characteristic of his method.
The chapter which follows therefore deals with the more technical aspects of
Cassiodorus' use of his historical sources: his methods of epitomization where we can
compare his work with a surviving source; the nature of the source he used when that
source no longer exists; and any problems or issues specific to each source. Comparison
of Cassiodorus' Chronica with existing sources — Jerome, Prosper and Eutropius — can
both help us to make some educated guesses about how he treated those which no longer
exist: the Livian Epitome and the particular version of the Italian consularia which he
used. As one might expect, each source poses its own particular questions and problems.
In many ways the sources which Cassiodorus does not mention have exercised
recent scholarship more than those he does mention. The late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries saw a flurry of attempts to trace a common source for all the Italian
consularia of the fifth and sixth centuries, as well as the Anonymus Valesianus.2*1 Since
there has been a great deal of interest recently in the Ostrogothic kingdom and in
particular in the interchange between the Gothic and Roman communities in Italy, much
of the recent discussion of the Chronica has centred around Cassiodorus' "Gothic" source
and the changes that he made to his primary sources, Jerome and Prosper. Since no
systematic study of Cassiodorus' sources has ever been undertaken, these discussions are
naturally not only somewhat tentative, but, in their brevity, slightly misleading when they
appear in discussions about what kind of document the Chronica is, or was intended to
287 Waitz 1865, Holder-Egger 1876, Oeschli 1873, and Cessi 1912.
220
be.
J. J. O'Donnell, whose thirty-year old book still has the longest discussion in
English of the Chronica, puts his finger on some difficult passages which require
explanation, but is aware that we lack sufficient knowledge of Cassiodorus' sources to say
much about them. Still, he asserts that Cassiodorus' statement at 423 that Theodosius
ruled the empire alone after Honorius' death is a reference to the supremacy of the eastern
empire over the western. As I have demonstrated above, however, Cassiodorus' chief
concern is to establish a clear chronological time-line. What is more, Cassiodorus simply
copied the statement from Prosper (1283), and added the word "solus" / "alone." Without
careful study of the sources and Cassiodorus' methods we can hardly make judgements
about the material which he does or does not include. Lastly, O'Donnell rightly notes the
panegyrical nature of the Chronica, but puts too much emphasis on that aspect of it.
Read as a whole, it is not a particularly successful panegyric either of Theoderic or the
addressee, Eutharic. This, likewise, is a problem which must be addressed only after a
full discussion of the sources and Cassiodorus' method.
In a similar vein, Arne Soby Christensen has devoted a number of pages of a
larger study to the Chronica?™ He attempts to answer questions about whether the
Chronica is dependent on Gothic stories and comes up with a negative answer (which I
believe is correct), but his analysis is necessarily haphazard and lacks the firm grounding
of the required scholarship to justify the conclusion. He asserts, for instance, that
Cassiodorus' mention of the Amazons in the earlier part of the Chronica is proof that
Jordanes took his information about the Amazons from Cassiodorus' Gothic History. But
288 Christensen 2002, 57-67.
Christensen is merely speculating from a high place. He says further that in the material
which Cassiodorus draws from Prosper there is no sign of "an independent Gothic
tradition," which is, again, correct, but is merely the result of a careful reading of the
Chronica. Before we can talk about why Cassiodorus included particular pieces of
information in his work, or what his intentions were, we need to build a clear picture of
his sources and his historiographical method. This picture, combined with what I have
written about in chapter three on chronology, will provide more secure structures upon
which to address broader political and cultural issues.
Cassiodorus Epitomizes Jerome
Cassiodorus made extensive use of Jerome and Prosper, as I discussed above, but
he does not always copy out his source word for word. By looking carefully at his
treatment of Jerome, and in particular what he copied, what he changed, and what he
omitted, we can gain some insight into how Cassiodorus treated those sources which no
longer survive.
Cassiodorus frequently quotes Jerome verbatim with no, or only with very minor,
changes. For instance, his note on the birth of the satirist Persius is Jerome verbatim:
"Persius Flaccus satyricus poeta Volaterris nascitur" (640; Jerome 176e).289 Occasionally
he adds the implied 'est'/'sunt' to Jerome's perfect participle passives or achieves the
same result by changing the tense, as in 1110, where he has "factus est" for Jerome's
"factus," or 1081, where "efficitur" replaces Jerome's "effectus." At times he makes very
289 Other examples of the same verbatim reproduction, with few alterations, are: 29, 79, 646, 654, 656, 659, 672, 673, 683, 706, 712, 716, 722, 725, 727, 729, 736, 740, 745, 749, 756, 761, 768, 770, 774, 777, 786, 791, 797, 799, 814, 826, 829, 831, 838, 848, 850, 857, 863, 867, 876, 879, 891, 900, 908, 918, 924, 927, 938, 943, 949, 950, 964, 966, 983, 990, 995, 996, 1012, 1022, 1032, 1056, 1069, 1081, 1092, 1095, 1110, 1111, 1119, 1120, 1124, 1126.
222
minor changes of single words with no appreciable change of meaning. For instance, at
1099 he has "esse coepit" for Jerome's "factus" (24le), and at 1095 "deletae sunt" for
Jerome's "oppressae" (240g).290
Occasionally Cassiodorus must alter a word because his epitomization demands it.
At 886 he writes, "Severus in Brittannos bellum mouit," whereas Jerome has "Clodio
Albino, qui se in Gallia Caesarem fecerat, aput Lugdunum interfecto Severus in Brittanos
bellum transfert" (212i). Cassiodorus had to use "mouit" rather than "transfert" because
he omitted the detail of Severus' initial conflict in Gaul with Clodius Albinus.
Despite his general tendency to stay fairly close to Jerome's wording, Cassiodorus
does not shy away from epitomizing Jerome's entries when he feels the need to, even
very short ones. When he does so, his chief aim appears to be a desire to extract the
salient historical details and to omit material not strictly relevant to the historical event.
For instance, at 651 Cassiodorus writes, "Petrus apostolus Romam mittitur ubi
evangel ium praedicans XXV annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseverat" / "the apostle
Peter is sent to Rome where he continues steadfastly as bishop of that city for twenty-five
years preaching the good news." Jerome's note, which Cassiodorus epitomized, reads,
"Petrus apostolus cum primus Antiochenam ecclesiam fundasset, Romam mittitur, ubi
evangelium praedicans XXV annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseverat" / "though he had
first founded the church at Antioch, the apostle Peter is sent to Rome where he continues
steadfastly as bishop of that city for twenty-five years preaching the good news" (179b).
Cassiodorus left out the detail of the founding of the church at Antioch since it could be
290 Other examples of this are 727, where Cassiodorus has "moenia" for Jerome's "opera" (191a), 1032 where Cassiodorus has "pompa" for Jerome's "praeda" (227m), and 927, where Cassiodorus has "ob hoc cunctis" for Jerome's "ob id omnibus" (215i).
omitted without compromising the particular fact of Peter's journey to and residence in
Rome. When Cassiodorus does not copy Jerome's note entirely, or with only a few
changes, this is the most frequent method of epitomization he uses.291
Less frequently, Cassiodorus rewrites parts of Jerome's entries, again with a view
to a brevity that does not compromise the historical detail. His notes on the deaths of
Peter and Paul are good examples: "Romae sanctus Petrus et Paulus apostolus trucidati
sunt a Nerone" / "At Rome saint Peter and the apostle Paul were slaughtered by Nero"
(689). Jerome's notes on the same events are more detailed: "Nero super omnia scelera
sua etiam persecutionem in Christianos facit, in qua Petrus et Paulus gloriose Romae
occubuerunt" / "Nero, in addition to all his crimes, also directed a persecution against the
Christians, during which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome" (185c). Cassiodorus
wished only to note the deaths of Peter and Paul at Rome at the hands of Nero, and so had
to change the neutral word "occubuerunt" to the powerful "trucidati sunt," which gets
across the detail of the persecution without noting that it was the first persecution of
Christians.292 On a very few occasions Cassidorus rewrote Jerome's note almost entirely
for the sake of compressing it, though he does not do this very often (as he does with
Prosper, whose notes can be much more verbose and thus longer) since Jerome's notes
tended to be brief. Still, even when Cassiodorus does this, he retains the basic vocabulary
Jerome uses. In 779, for example, Cassiodorus writes "Iuxta Eleusinam civitatem Cefiso
fluvio Hadrianus pontem constravit" / "Near the city of Eleusis, Hadrian built a bridge
over the Cephisus river." Jerome had written "Cefisus fluvius Eleusinam inundavit, quern
291 Other, though certainly not all, examples of this are 651, 690, 737, 747, 766, 772, 886, 910 and 914. 292 This note highlights the different preoccupations of Cassiodorus and Jerome. Cassiodorus fixes his
sight almost resolutely on the city of Rome, whereas Jerome was deeply interested in the history of the church and the persecution of Christians.
Hadnanus ponte coniugens Athenis hiemem exegit" / "The Cephisus river flooded
Eleusis; Hadrian, having spanned the river with a bridge, spent the winter at Athens"
(198i). Cassiodorus cuts the note back to the bare facts of who built the bridge and
where.293
There are a handful of places (703, 766, 789, 797, 823, 845, 956, 988, 1061, 1073
and 1086) where Cassiodorus inserted additional material into Jerome's entries, generally
either for reasons of clarity for the reader or to make the historical note relevant in his
own day. For instance, at 703 Cassiodorus writes, "Vespasianus incensum Capitolium
aedificare orsus est" / "Vespasian began to build the Capitolium after it had burned
down." Jerome has "Vespasianus Capitolium aedificare orsus" / "Vespasian began to
build the Capitolium" (188a). The addition is actually taken from an earlier note in
Jerome, who had already noted that the Capitolium had been burned during the war with
Vitellius (186i, where Jerome actually uses the word "incensum"), whereas Cassiodorus
had not, but needed to make it clear to his reader why Vespasian rebuilt the Capitolium.
At 797, where Jerome had written "Aelia ab Aelio Hadriano condita" / "Aelia was
founded by Aelius Hadrianus" (201a), Cassiodorus upgraded the note to read "Aelia
civitas, id est Hierusalem, ab Aelio Hadriano condita est" / "the city of Aelia, that is
Jerusalem, was founded by Aelius Hadrianus," noting for his reader the more commonly
used name of the city in the sixth century.294
293 Other examples of this kind of revision of notes are found at 7, 9, 18, 25, 27, 41, 68, 671, 689, 699, 785, 869 and 972.
294 Other examples of this kind of clarification are 58 (cf. Jerome 70a2-4), where Cassiodorus makes it clear that Solomon was the son of David; 845 (cf. Jerome 207d), where Cassiodorus gives the full name of the emperor M. Antoninus Verus to avoid confusion; 988 (cf. Jerome 222g) where Cassiodorus makes it clear that Zenobia and Tetricus were captives; 1073 (cf. Jerome 235a) where he makes it clear which brother the emperor Constantine II attacked near Aquileia; 1086 (cf. Jerome 236c) where Cassiodorus notes that Constantius remained emperor after the death of Constans.
225
At 956, following a note drawn entirely from Eutropius on the Decian baths,295
Cassiodorus relates the death of Decius and his son at Abrittus: "Decius cum filio suo in
Abritio Traciae loco a Gothis occiditur" / "Decius was killed with his son in Abrittus, a
place in Thrace, by the Goths." Decius' death is noted by Jerome, but Jerome does not say
that Abritus was in Thrace (218h). Cassiodorus either knew this tid-bit of information, or
he found it somewhere else.296
On two occasions Cassiodorus actually corrects Jerome. The first example deals
with the assassination of Caligula. Jerome says that he was killed "a protectoribus" (178-
179), whereas Cassiodorus states, more correctly, that he was killed "in protectoribus."
Josephus is very clear in his detailed account of the assassination that Caligula was killed
in a hallway crowded with his attendants and some bodyguards.297 Although Cassius
Chaerea was a commander of the praetorians, Caligula's assassins could not strictly be
described as "protectores." None of the manuscripts of Jerome read "in protectoribus" at
this place. We know that later in his life Cassiodorus commissioned a Latin translation of
the Antiquitates,19* but it cannot be determined whether he knew the story of the
assassination from there or not. The detail is not in Suetonius.
The second occasion has to do with the baths built by Nero in 64, and which were
rebuilt and rededicated by Severus Alexander in 221. Both Jerome and Cassiodorus treat
them in two separate notes, but Jerome's notes make them sound like two separate bath
complexes: "Thermae a Nerone aedificatae, quas Neronianas appellavit" / "Baths were
built by Nero, which he named 'Neronian'" (183d) and "Thermae Alexandrianae Romae
295 See below, p. 234. 296 He did not get it from Eutropius. 297 Josephus AJ 19.14.15. 298 Inst. 1.17.1
226
aedificatae" / "The Alexandrian baths were built at Rome" (215d). Cassiodorus, however,
makes it clear in both of his notes that the bath complexes were the same, merely
renamed: "Thermae aNerone aedificatae, quas Neronianas appellavit, cuius odio, mutato
vocabulo, nunc Alexandrinae nominantur" / "Baths were built by Nero, which he named
'Neronian', and because of the hatred of him, the name having been changed, are now
called 'Alexandrian'" (681) and "Neronianae thermae Alexandrianae vocatae sunt" / "The
Neronian baths were named 'Alexandrian'" (920). Cassiodorus got his extra information
from Eutropius, whom I will discuss below,299 who clearly says that "Is [Nero] aedificavit
Romae thermas, quae ante Neronianae dictae, nunc Alexandrianae appellantur" / "He
[Nero] built baths at Rome, which, though named 'Neronian' earlier, are now called
"Alexandrian" (7.15).
There are, in addition, a handful of odd notes or changes made by Cassiodorus
which point to his sensitivity to the political situation under which he wrote and the status
of his addressee.300 But I will treat these situations in the next chapter, along with similar
alterations Cassiodorus made to his source for the years 379 to 455, Prosper of Aquitaine.
The Livian Epitome Again: Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens, and P. Oxy. 668
We can now turn to a comparison of the historical entries with those in Livy,
Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus 668. In my earlier discussion of the Republican
consular list, I came to the conclusion that the original epitome of Livy's consuls had
299 Pp. 232ff. 300 These are 804, 956, 998, 1022 and 1076.
been a much fuller work than the one which Cassiodorus used, and that, despite the
similarities between P. Oxy. 668 and Cassiodorus, Cassiodorus' epitome was related to,
but not the same as P. Oxy. 668. The following discussion of the historical notes reveals
the same situation.
As was noted above, the fragments of the Oxyrhynchus epitome cover the years
190 to 179 BCE and 150 to 137 BCE, and Obsequens' Liberprodigiorum covers the years
190 to 11 BCE, but with entries for only eighty years.301 Since Cassiodorus does not have
historical entries for all his years, since Obsequens does not cover all the years in his
compass, and since the papyrus is mutilated and short, there are a limited number of
opportunities for comparison among them. In what follows I will examine the single
entry common to all three authors, then proceed to comparisons of Cassiodorus and the
Oxyrhynchus Epitome and then Cassiodorus and Obsequens.
Only one historical notice is recorded by all three authors - about Hannibal's
death. Straightaway we confront the sad state of the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, which is here
given with Rossbach's restoration:
Cass. 377: His conss. Hannibal apud Prusian veneno periit. Obs. 4: Hannibal in Bithynia veneno periit. Oxy. 64-65: Han[nibal apud Prusiam re]
ge[m per] le[gatos Romanos expetitus veneno pe]rit.
But very little survives of the entry on the papyrus. Of the ten letters which Rossbach
saw, he was only certain of eight of them, the "g" and the "1" being difficult to make out.
han ge....le
301 Obsequens has two entries for the year 44, one headed by the consuls Caesar and Antony, the other by Antony and the suffect for the year, Dolabella.
228
rit
Grenfell and Hunt (1904) noted that the passage must be a reference to Hannibal's death
(103),302 but they read the letters on the papyrus differently from Rossbach, and do not
attempt more than a few modest restorations:
Han[nibal 12 letters fl[ ]uhe[ 19 letters
l[ib(er) xxxx.
The restoration of "Hannibal" seems certain and, given the year the entry appears, it is
undoubtedly a reference to Hannibal's death. But as for the remainder, although
Rossbach's restoration of the text is attractive and plausible, there is no basis here for
constructing an argument based on similarity of language.303
Cassiodorus differs from Obsequens in one major detail. He has placed Hannibal's
death specifically at the home of King Prusias rather than simply in Bithynia. The
difference would seem to be the result of each author choosing different details from a
common source which, as we will see below, was probably not the Oxyrhynchus epitome,
though something very close to it.304 The similarity of Cassiodorus and Obsequens,
however, is proof enough that a sentence very like this one appeared in their source.
Clearly, though, the entry in the papyrus is longer than either that of Cassiodorus or
302 Grenfell and Hunt 1904, 103. 303 As does Schmidt, 184. 304 Schmidt contends that Obsequens exhibits a tendency to record the place where events occurred if it is
at all possible (p. 168). Arguing from the basis of Rossbach's restoration, he suggests that Obsequens referred to the whole of Livy to discover that Prusias was king of Bithynia. Since Obsequens referred to the whole of Livy for his portents and prodigies, this would not be difficult. But recourse to Livy is frequently Schmidt's explanation for differences between the Oxyrhynchus Epitome and Obsequens, e.g. for the detail of Hasdrubal's behaviour at Carthage (Ox. 132 ff. and 138 ff, Obs. 20) and for the detail that the Gauls who invaded Italy in 186 had crossed over the Alps. Such a familiarity with Livy and careful reference to him on the part of Obsequens allows for a good deal of contamination at best, and at worst puts heavy strains on Schmidt's theory that the Oxyrhynchus Epitome was Obsequens' source.
Obsequens, which suggests that perhaps the document from which Cassiodorus took his
material also had a longer entry and that Cassiodorus himself trimmed it, as we saw he
sometimes did with Jerome.
There is one entry which occurs in both Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus
epitome:
Cass. 373: His conss. athletarum certamina primum a Fulvio edita. Ox. 42-43: at[hletarum cerfjamina
primum a Fu[lvio Nobilior]e edita.
The restoration of the papyrus here is fairly certain and the similarity of the two entries is
obvious, the only difference being that Fulvius' cognomen is not in Cassiodorus. It also
does not appear in the record of Nobilior's consulship in 189 (565).305
A comparison of the historical entries of Cassiodorus and Obsequens shows
considerable similarity between the two works, but also a good deal of variation within
entries recording the same event and with respect to the consular year under which
similar entries are placed. Cass. 460: per Servilium Caepionem consulem iudicia equitibus et
senatoribus communicata. Obs. 41: Per Caepionem consulem senatorum et equitum iudicia
communicata.
Here the form of the source is varied slightly by one of the authors, but the same short
sentence and truncated verb testifies to a similarly brief and paratactic form in the source.
Cass. 471: Ptolemaeus Aegypti rex populum Romanum heredem reliquit. Obs. 49: Ptolemaeus, rex Aegypti, Cyrenis mortuus SPQ Romanum
heredem reliquit.306
305 Rossbach follows Grenfell and Hunt in their restoration of this passage. 306 This entry is often used to illustrate the independence of Cassiodorus and Obsequens from the
mainstream of users of the Livian epitome. Witnesses to the epitome, Periochae 70 and Jerome 149e, both include this entry and correctly identify Ptolemy as king of Cyrene, not Egypt. See Sanders, 186-187 and Schmidt, 193.
230
and
Cass. 486: Capitolium custodum neglegentia concrematur.
Obs. 57: <fraude? neglegentia?> aeditui Capitolium una nocte conflagravit.
Again, the form of the entry of each is slightly different, but the two clearly derive from
the same source and each appears in the same year. In both cases, Cassiodorus' entry is
shorter than Obsequens', which may suggest that he omitted unnecessary details, as we
have seen he did with Jerome. Cass. 510: Catilina in agro Pistoriensi a C. Antonio bello peremptus est. Obs. 61a: C. Antonius cum in agro Pistoriensi Catilinam devicisset laureatos
fasces in provinciam tulit. ibi a Dardanis oppressus amisso exercitu profugit. apparuit eum hostibus portendisse victoriam, cum ad eos laurum victricem tulerit, quam in Capitolio debuerat deponere.
Cassiodorus puts the event in 61 BCE, in the consulship of M. Pupius and M. Valerius,
which is wrong, since the defeat of Catiline and his army was in early January of 62. The
whole passage from Obsequens, as well as the previous one with the consular names
from 63, is appended to the year 60 , which is clearly a displacement, and is moved by
most editors.307 Thus these events appear to be attached to 63 in Obsequens, rather than
61, as they are in Cassiodorus. But Rossbach restores the consuls of 62, "D. Iunio L.
Murena coss.," as the heading for this section, which must be right. According to
Schmidt, there were times when Obsequens preferred to avoid the paratactic style of his
source and employ subordination through, for instance, ablatives absolute and temporal
clauses. In doing so he compressed the events of more than one year into a single entry.308
Still, this does not explain why Cassiodorus' date is off by a year, and it may be that the
307 See Rossbach 1910, p. 175. 308 Schmidt, 190ff. in which he discusses Obsequens 20 and the compression of the siege and destruction
of Carthage into one year, while the Oxyrhynchus epitome, a better witness to Obsequens' source, divides the events into two years.
correct consular pair to restore to Obsequens is not "D. Iunio L. Murena coss.," but "M.
Pupio M. Valerio coss.," the consuls of 61. But no more can be said about this.
Cass. 531: Caesar Pompeium Farsalico proelio superavit. Pompeius fugiens in Aegyptum occisus est.
Obs. 65a: Mox acie [Pompeius] victus in Aegypto occisus.
In this pair the events are the same, but they are recorded in very different language and
also under different years (47 and 48, respectively), if we are to accept the restoration in
Obsequens of the consular heading, again by Oudendorp, of "C. Caesare P. Servilio
coss.." The reason for the difference in date is unclear. As will be seen below, there is
reason to believe that Obsequens resorted to the full text of Livy on occasion, and
corrected his source. It may therefore be that Obsequens preserves the original and that
Cassiodorus is in error, but it is perhaps more likely that he corrected an error which is
preserved by Cassiodorus. The paratactic style of Cassiodorus' entry, as we have seen,
probably preserves the original, while Obsequens compressed his source.309
We see another alteration of style by Obsequens in what follows, though with
stylistically better results:
Cass. 539: Caesar Octavianus, Antonius et Lepidus amicitiae foedus inierunt. Obs. 69: Reconciliatione inter Caesarem, Antonium, Lepidum facta foeda
principum fuit proscriptio.310
Recording the death of Caesar, the different entries of the two authors require a
new explanation:
309 Obsequens wrote a "set piece" about Pompey, complete with portents which foretold his death (65a). As in the case of C. Antonius above, he has used better style in the interest of pathos and a more interesting narrative.
310 Not only is the syntax different, but the use of the different meanings of foedus points, counterintuitively, to a common source. Cassiodorus has the more natural one given the context, with foedus meaning "treaty," whereas Obsequens has used the other meaning, "foul" and used the adjective to modify proscriptio.
Cass. 536: ...Idibus Martiis Caesar in Pompeia curia occisus est. Obs. 67: ipse Caesar viginti tribus vulneribus in curia Pompeiana a
coniuratis confossus.
Here, it would appear that Obsequens rather than Cassiodorus provides the reading of
their source, since at this place in Jerome's chronicle we find: "Idibus Martiis C. Iulius
Caesar in curia occiditur." Cassiodorus had begun to use Jerome as a source again for the
Roman emperors, and found the entry there. He inserted the name of the curia, which he
found in the source he shared with Obsequens.3" We have seen, in the section on
Cassiodorus' epitomization of Jerome, that he occasionally combined notes or used
information from two sources in a single note.312
With very few points of comparison between Cassiodorus and the other two
witnesses to the source he used, there is very little to say of a general nature. Although, as
we have seen, the notices in the Republican years in Cassiodorus fall in well with
Cassiodorus' larger programme, these years stand out for the paucity of historical notices
we see there. The document has broad stretches where only consular names are recorded.
Furthermore, a few of the historical notices seem oddly out of place, such as the record of
Hamilcar's statement that he was raising his four sons like lion cubs against the Roman
people (326), or the establishment of mines in Macedonia (403), and more obviously
important events are left out, like the battle of Zama and the destruction of Carthage.
Given the large number of events which Cassiodorus lists before and after the Republic,
when he was using Jerome as his historical source, it is fair to assume that he copied all
311 Just how far Obsequens deviated from his source is once more unclear. Here too, as with Pompey, the death is the climax of the preceding portents, and so is carefully arranged. The language is very similar to Suetonius (Div. Iul. 82) "tribus et uiginti plagis confossus est" / "he was stabbed with twenty-three strokes." On this entry, see Schmidt, 195, n. 1, for a discussion of the entire epitome tradition.
312 See above, pp 221 ff..
the historical notes from the Livian consularia he had, and would have included more if
he could have. Why he did not make more use of Eutropius, whom he used once as a
chronological guide (183-186), is unclear. Eutropius has many consular dates which
would have provided him with many more events to include.
Cassiodorus and Eutropius
Cassiodorus had a copy of Eutropius' Breviarium close to hand through the entire
composition of his Chronica, but he (almost) never used him as a primary source. On
every occasion but one he referred to Eutropius only to provide additional information to
what Jerome offers.313 We can see in his use of the Breviarium two subjects in particular
which were important to him: chronology and the city of Rome. Most often the
information is chronological. I discussed at length above how he used Eutropius'
chronological information to establish (incorrectly) the length of the rule of military
tribunes in the Republic.314 In addition, as I noted above in my comparison of Jerome's
and Cassiodorus' imperial reigns,315 he took more precise lengths of Otho's, Trajan's and
Hadrian's reigns, as well as the length of Vitellius' reign, from Eutropius.
Of the remaining five items which Cassiodorus took from Eutropius, three relate
directly to structures in the city of Rome: 681/ 920, 766 and 955.1 discussed Cassiodorus'
313 He made use of Eutropius at 183, 681/920, 692, 693, 714, 740, 766, 823, 955, and 1035. Mommsen, in his edition, suggests that Cassiodorus used Eutropius at 1061, where Cassiodorus notes that Byzantium was rededicated by Constantine as Constantinople. But Cassiodorus would not have needed Eutropius to give him this information, and there are no verbal parallels between the two authors, as there are in all the other cases.
314 See above, pp. 126ff.. 315 See above, p. 211, n. 280.
correction of Jerome on the rebuilding and rededication of the baths of Nero above. At
766, Cassiodorus oddly includes the height of Trajan's column, drawn from Eutropius
(8.5.2), in his note on Trajan's death, the rest of which is taken from Jerome (197a).
Finally, in the only note drawn solely from Eutropius, Cassiodorus dates the construction
of the baths of Decius to 252, the second year of Decius' reign. Both of these notes,
deliberately drawn from Eutropius, not Cassiodorus' primary source, demonstrate his
interest in the physical city of Rome, as I will discuss in more detail below.
Finally, two additions to notes on emperors were drawn from Eutropius. The first,
a note on the death of the emperor Titus, that "ob insignem mansuetudinem deliciae
humani generis appellatus est" / "because of his remarkable affability he was named the
delight of the human race" (714) is drawn from Eutropius description of Titus: "amor et
deliciae humani generis diceretur" / "he was said to be the love and delight of the human
race" (7.21.1). Finally, as I noted above, Cassiodorus used Eutropius in his note on the
resignation of Diocletian and the accession of Constantius.317 This use of Eutropius may
well come under the heading of chronology, since Cassiodorus was clearly confused at
this spot about the number of years to be assigned to Diocletian and Constantius, and may
have referred to Eutropius for clarification.
Though Cassiodorus used Eutropius for correction and clarification on some
points of chronology, he certainly did not use him everywhere he could have. Book eight
of Eutropius seems to have been problematic for him and contains some information
which Cassiodorus used and some which he seems to have ignored, or could not use.
316 See above, p. 226. 317 See above, p. 121.
Eutropius begins book eight with some very precise chronological information, including
the AUC date and a consular date for the first year of Nerva's reign (96): "Anno
octingentesimo et quinquagesimo ab urbe condita, Vetere et Valente consulibus" / "in the
eight-hundred and fiftieth year year from the founding of the city, when Vetus and Valens
were consuls" (8.1.1). By the time Cassiodorus got to the beginning of Nerva's reign he
had only counted 847 years from the founding of the city, and the consular list he drew
from Victorius had no consulship of Vetus and Valens (Victorius has 'Flauio et Vetere'
(opposite the Easter for 91, not 96), an error for Prosper's 'Fuluio et Vetere', which
Cassiodorus reports, while the consulship was actually that of Valens and Vetus). But the
only indications that he tried to reconcile Eutropius with Jerome and his own work are his
alterations of the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. Eutropius gives a very precise length for
Nerva's reign (one year, four months and eight days, 8.1.2), but Cassiodorus only
includes the year and the months, as does Jerome, though for Trajan and Hadrian
Cassiodorus added the number of days, while Jerome did not. Similarly, he disregards
Eutropius' length of Antoninus Pius' reign of twenty-three years (8.8.4), as he had done
with Jerome's for the same emperor of twenty-two years, four months. It is possible that
he began to consult Eutropius more carefully during Trajan's and Hadrian's reigns
because, as I noted above in my discussion of Cassiodorus' combination of his consular
list with Jerome's imperial reigns, he knew that he was getting into difficulty and was
looking for a way out.
In general, we can see in Cassiodorus' use of Eutropius his care for the
chronological structure of his work, his use of a source only to add material to a primary
source which had a more sure chronological structure itself and his interest in the
buildings and monuments in the city of Rome.
Cassiodorus and Prosper of Aquitaine
Prosper of Aquitaine lived in Marseilles in the 420s and was a strong supporter of
St. Augustine during the semi-Pelagian controversy. He wrote a number of letters and
hexameter verses, and, more important for our purposes, he composed a chronicle in 433.
The work included an epitome of Jerome from creation, but Prosper included consular
years from 28 CE, the year of the crucifixion, and extended the time-line to his own day.
He produced two revisions of his work in 445 and 455.318 His work survives in a variety
of forms: both as a stand-alone chronicle from the beginning of time to the fifth century,
but also as a continuation of Jerome's full chronicle.
As we have seen, Victorius of Aquitaine used Prosper's consular list as the
chronological basis for his Cursus Paschalis. Prosper, of course, dated his chronicle from
the crucifixion to his own day by consuls, but Cassiodorus did not use Prosper's consular
list, but Victorius'. However, if he had Victorius' introduction to the Cursus Paschalis, he
knew from the introduction that Victorius had taken his consular list from Prosper. As I
have suggested above, it seems likely that Cassiodorus trusted Victorius' Easter table,
which would have included a complete list of consuls from 28 CE down to Cassiodorus'
own day. It is further not impossible, and perhaps even likely, that Cassiodorus only had
Prosper's extension of Jerome after 378, and not Prosper's full epitome of Jerome with
318 Burgess and Kulikowski, forthcoming.
consular dates added.
Cassiodorus does not say that he used Prosper, but a cursory comparison of his
historical entries with those of Prosper for the years between 379 and 445 make it
abundantly clear that he did.320 As I noted above, Cassiodorus lists at the end of the
Chronica only those sources which he used for constructing his chronology, not those
which he used for historical notes. Jerome himself is only mentioned because
Cassiodorus used his chronological framework for the early years from creation to the
establishment of the consulship, but he does not note him for the extensive use which he
made of him between the crucifixion and 378. It is not surprising, then, that Prosper
should go unnamed.
Mommsen, in Chronica Minora I, suggested that Cassiodorus had used the
version of Prosper's chronicle which extended to 455, and that he had supplemented it
with other material from the consularia he used for his historical notes from 445 on.321
But, with the publication of Cassiodorus' Chronica in Chronica Minora II, two years
later, he changed his mind and suggested that both men had used similar consularia as
their sources for those ten years.322 He further posited that Cassiodorus may well have
319 It is not impossible that Cassiodorus, in attempting to bring together Jerome's historical entries with a consular list, was consciously correcting Prosper, but I see no evidence that this was the case.
320 E.g. s.a. 380 Prosper: "Ambrosius episcopus multa pro Catholica fide sublimiter scribit;" Cassiodorus: "Ambrosius episcopus de Christiana fide multa sublimiter scribit," and s.a. 381 Prosper: "Martinus episcopus Turinorum Galliae civitatis multis clarus habetur;" Cassiodorus: "Martinus episcopus Turonum Galliae civitatis clarus habetur."
321 Mommsen 1892, 368 and 374. Cassiodorus certainly knew of the full version of Prosper when he published his Institutiones in 562, since he recommends Prosper to his readers: "Sanctus quoque Prosper chronica ab Adam ad Gensirici tempora et urbis depredationem usque perduxit'V'the holy Prosper also wrote a chronicle from Adam to the time of Geiseric and the sacking of the city" (Inst. 1.17.2). But, of course, his knowledge of Prosper's work in 562 is no reason to suppose that he knew of it, or had it, forty-three years earlier.
322 Mommsen 1894,113.
had a copy of Jerome which had Prosper's continuation appended. Mommsen does not
anywhere lay out clearly all his reasons for his suggestions, so the question needs to be
addressed methodically and carefully.
Cassiodorus has only six historical entries for the period between 446 and 455,
and a quick comparison between his entries and Prosper's suggests at the very least some
ruthless epitomization on Cassiodorus' part: Prosper's entries are rather long, Cassiodorus'
typically short. More important, however, are several pieces of information in
Cassiodorus' entries which he did not get from Prosper's chronicle.324 Since Cassiodorus'
methods of epitomization and adaptation of Prosper's entries are at the heart of this
question, we must carefully compare the entries which Cassiodorus clearly took from
Prosper between the years 379 and 445 with Prosper's work, before we deal with the
entries between 446 and 455. We will then be able to address the years 446 to 455 with
some foundation for making historiographical judgements.
Cassiodorus treated the historical entries he found in Prosper in much the same
way as he did those he found in Jerome: his aim was to capture relevant historical detail
in as brief a manner as possible. If his source's entries were short enough already, he
copied them verbatim; if he could omit detail without compromising the record of the
event, he did; sometimes, however, he found it necessary either to add material or rewrite
his source.
As is the case with the entries from Jerome, for the most part Cassiodorus copied
entire entries from Prosper almost verbatim, with an occasional switch of verb tense or
323 Codex Leidenensis Scaligeri 14 is an extant example of just such a work. 324 See below, pp. 240ff.
voice. For example, at 1190 Cassiodorus notes the capture of land in Gaul by the
Burgundians: "Burgundiones partem Galliae Rheno tenuere coniunctam" / "The
Burgundians held the part of Gaul beside the Rhine." Prosper's note is only slightly
different: "Burgundiones partem Galliae propinquam Rheno optinuerunt" / "The
Burgundians held the part of Gaul close to the Rhine."325
Cassiodorus often left out what he regarded as detail unnecessary for his spare
narrative, sometimes a few words, sometimes more, but at the same time quoting the key
words at the heart of Prosper's entry. For example, at 1142 Cassiodorus relates the death
of Gratian in a few words: "Gratianus apud Lugdunum captus occiditur" / "Gratian was
captured and killed at Lyon," whereas Prosper's entry is much longer: "In Brittania per
seditionem militum Maximus imperator est factus. quo mox ad Gallias transfretante
Gratianus Parisiis Merobaudis magistri militum proditione superatus et fugiens Lugduni
captus atque occisus est" / "Maximus was made emperor in Britain through the treachery
of the soldiers. Soon after he crossed into Gaul and Gratian was defeated at Paris through
the betrayal of Merobaudes, his magister militum. He then fled to Lyon, where he was
captured and killed." Although he has omitted a great deal of Prosper's note, Cassiodorus
retains Prosper's words and the essential information in his own work.326
As he had done with Jerome, on a very few occasions Cassiodorus found that the
entry in Prosper needed considerable rewriting to compress it. A good example is 1211,
which relates the defeat of John by Valentinian and of the Huns by Aetius: "Iohannem
325 The following entries are taken almost entirely from Prosper, occasionally with one or two words omitted, or the tense or mood of the verb changed: 1134, 1136, 1140, 1157, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1169, 1177, 1180, 1181, 1183, 1188, 1190, 1199, 1207, 1209, 1226, 1229, 1233, 1240, and 1243.
326 Other examples are 1143, 1153, 1225, 1226, 1235, 1237, 1239, 1250 and 1251.
tyrannum Valentinianus imperator extinxit Hunosque qui in Italia erant Iohanni praesidio
per Aetium mira felicitate dimovit" / "The emperor Valentinian crushed the usurper John
and with miraculous good fortune through Aetius he repelled the Huns who were in Italy
as a protection to John." Prosper's note is rather different: "Placidia Augusta et
Valentinianus Caesar mira felicitate Iohannem tyrannum opprimunt et regnum victores
recipiunt. Data venia Aetio eo quod Chuni, quos per ipsum Iohannes acciverat, eiusdem
studio ad propria reversi sunt" / "Placidia Augusta and Valentinian Caesar suppressed
John with miraculous good fortune and victoriously retook the empire; Aetius was
pardoned because it was through his exertions that the Huns, whom John had summoned
on his own account, were turned back to their own lands" (1288). Oddly, Cassiodorus
transposed the phrase "mira felicitate" / "with miraculous good fortune" to Aetius' defeat
of the Huns, whereas Prosper used it to modify Placidia and Valentinian's defeat of John.
Still, it is easy to see that Cassiodorus used only Prosper's words in his own note and had
no recourse to another source.327
There are, however, nine notes over the years between 379 and 445 which contain
information not found in Prosper: 1134, 1138, 1169, 1172, 1185, 1194, 1205, 1215 and
1217. In each case Cassiodorus has expanded Prosper's note with information from
elsewhere. In two cases (1134 and 1169), Cassiodorus need not have made use of an
external source. But in the remaining seven he must have used information from a written
source. As we will see, we can make some guesses about where the extra information
came from, but we cannot be sure.
Cassiodorus' note at 1134 has been the subject of frequent comment by those who
327 Other examples of Cassiodorus' rewriting of Prosper's notes are 1145, 1206, 1214 and 1232.
241
discuss the Chronica: "Ambrosius episcopus de Christiana fide multa sublimiter scribit" /
"Bishop Ambrose wrote many uplifting works about the Christian faith." Cassiodorus
was here reproducing Prosper's very similar note: "Ambrosius episcopus de catholica fide
multa sublimiter scribit" / "Bishop Ambrose wrote many uplifting things about the
Catholic faith" (1173). One does not need to look far for the reason for Cassiodorus'
alteration: he did not wish to insult his address, an Arian, by mentioning orthodoxy and
drawing attention to the religious differences between the Romans and the Goths.328 But
Cassiodorus would have no need of an outside source to make this change.
Similarly, at 1169, Cassiodorus wrote: "Gothi Halarico et Radagaiso regibus
ingrediuntur Italiam" / "The Goths entered Italy under their kings Alaric and Radagaisus"
- almost exactly the same as Prosper, who has "ducibus" ("leaders") for "regibus" (1218).
Again, Cassiodorus did not require an outside source to make this change, upgrading the
Gothic commanders' status.329
The remaining seven instances where Cassiodorus has information different from
Prosper indicate that he had an additional source or sources, which he used alongside
Prosper. After discussing each one, I will make some suggestions about what those
sources may have been and what they may have looked like.
Cassiodorus' note at 1194 presents a slightly more complicated problem which
raises a number of issues including Cassiodorus' method of epitomization and which
version of Prosper's chronicle he used. Cassiodorus' note is as follows: "Gothi placati
Constantio Placidiam reddiderunt cuius nuptias promeretur" / "The Goths, pacified,
328 Mommsen 1894, 114, O'Donnell 1979, 39, Moorhead 1992, 91. 329 On the other hand, Cassiodorus does not call Alaric "rex," but "dux" in his note on the sack of Rome
at 1185. Orosius, whom Cassiodorus may have been reading alongside Prosper, calls both Alaric and Radagaisus "reges" (7.37.2 and 7.37.15, respectively), but never "duces."
returned Placidia to Constantius and won the right to marry her." Prosper has two
different notes from his versions of 445 and 455.330 Prosper's initial, and longer, note of
445 had been, "Placidiam Theodosii imperatoris filiam, quam Romae Gothi ceperant
quamque Athaulfus coniugem habuerat, Wallia pacem Honorii expetens reddit eiusque
nuptias Constantius promeretur" / "Wallia, seeking peace from Honorius, returned
Placidia the daughter of the emperor Theodosius, whom the Goths had captured at Rome
and whom Athaulf had married, and Constantius earned her marriage" (1259). His later
note, considerably trimmed back, reads, "Wallia Placidiam reddit, cuius nuptias
Constantius promeretur" / "Wallia returned Placidia and Constantius earned her
marriage."331 The change of "Wallia" (the king of the Visigoths) to "Gothi" would not
require another source, and is perhaps an example of Cassiodorus using a more general
term for a reader or readers who would not recognize the name "Wallia.332 But
Cassiodorus' move of Constantius' name from the subordinate clause to the primary
clause is noteworthy. The story of Placidia's physical return to Constantius himself is
reported by Jordanes in his Getica. Jordanes claims to have used Cassiodorus' lost Gothic
History as the primary source for his Getica. Thus, whether or not the story is true, it
would appear that it was in Cassiodorus' Gothic History as well.333
Finally, the word "placati" suggests that the Romans had done something to make
330 On the different versions of Prosper as represented by the different manuscripts, see Burgess, Mosaics, forthcoming.
331 The close similarity of the phrasing of Cassiodorus with that of Prosper's note of 455 strongly suggests that the version of Prosper which Cassiodorus used was that of 455. See below, pp. 248ff.
332 Although Cassiodorus had not mentioned Placidia before this (neither had Prosper), and so perhaps assumes knowledge of who she was. See above, p. 239.
333 The Gothic History was probably not completed until the late 520's at least (see Barnish 1984), but the Chronica may be used carefully as a guide for some, but not all, of what may have been in it. See Croke 1987, 129-134.
243
the Goths less hostile, and as part of that bargain, Placidia was returned. Prosper's note of
445 indicates that it was Wallia who was seeking peace and who agreed to hand Placidia
to ensure that he got it. The other sources vary a little as to the exact bargain and the
reasons for it. Jordanes, who, as we have mentioned, used Cassiodorus for this story,
indicates that Honorius made the first move, but also that the Romans and Goths, when
they met, were evenly matched.334 Orosius describes a settlement much in the Romans'
favour, with Wallia handing over hostages.335 Olympiodorus, whose account is perhaps
more detailed than anyone else's, notes that Euplutius the agens in rebus was sent to
negotiate with Wallia, who returned Placidia after 600,000 modii of grain were given to
the Goths - grain which had perhaps been promised to his predecessor Athaulf in return
for Placidia.336
But for the fact that the name "Constantius" is transposed in the sentence, it would
not be impossible that Cassiodorus had used Prosper's version of 445 and had rewritten
the report that Wallia was "expetens pacem" / "seeking peace," using the word "pacati" to
make the Goths seem slightly stronger in their dealings with the Romans. Though it is not
easy to tell, it would appear, then, on balance, that Cassiodorus had another source with
which he corrected Prosper's account at this point. The fact that Jordanes' account of the
actual handing over of Placidia to Constantius (as opposed to someone else, or someone
unnamed) more or less agrees with Cassidorus' broad outlines at this point further
suggests that Cassiodorus' changes here were deliberate and that he repeated the story in
the Gothic History seven or eight years later.
334 Jordanes Get. 32.164-165. 335 Orosius 43.11-12. 336 Olympiodorus frg. 26 Blockley = Philostorgius 12.4-5.
244
The remaining six historical entries show clearer cases of Cassiodorus resorting to
another source or sources. Details from four of these entries (1138, 1172, 1185 and 1215)
are recorded in Jordanes' Getica as well. At 1138 Cassiodorus notes that Athanaric died at
Constantinople: "Athanaricus rex Gothorum Constantinopolim venit ibique vitam exegit"
/ "Athanaric the king of the Goths came to Constantinople and died there." Prosper,
however, had noted that Athanaric had been murdered: "Aithanaricus rex Gothorum apud
Constantinopolim quinto decimo die quam fuerat susceptus occiditur" / "Athanaric the
king of the Goths is killed on the fifteenth day from when he had been received (there)"
(1177). It has been suggested that Cassiodorus was deliberately changing the record at
this point,337 but several other sources merely say that Athanaric died there.338 It is not
impossible that Cassiodorus avoided reproducing Prosper's note, but he did not make up
his own.
Cassiodorus' note on the battle of Pollentia shows some of the most noteworthy
differences between Cassiodorus and Prosper. At 1172, Cassiodorus says, "Pollentiae
Stiliconem cum exercitu Romano Gothi victum acie fugaverunt" / "At Pollentia the Goths
defeated Stilicho with the Roman army in battle and put him to flight." Prosper is much
less definitive about the winner: Pollentiae adversum Gothos vehementer utriusque partis
clade pugnatum" / "At Pollentia there was a fierce battle against the Goths with great loss
on both sides." There seems to be no doubt that Stilicho won the battle,339 though his
victory was not overwhelming.340 Still, it is not at all clear where Cassiodorus took his
337 0'Donnelll979,38. 338 The Descriptio Consilium s.a. 381, Ammianus 27.5.10, Marcellinus s.a. 381, Orosius 7.34.6-7,
Hydatius s.a. 381, Zosimus 4.34, Socrates 5.10 and Jordanes 28.144. 339 Orosius 7.37.2, Claudian de Cons. Hon. VI, 223ff. 340 Demougeot 1951,270.
information from. Many have said that Cassiodorus was simply altering the historical
record at this point, to boost the reputation of his addressee's heritage,342 and this may
well be the case.
At 1185 Cassiodorus notes that "Roma a Gothis Halarico duce capta est ubi
clementer usi victoria sunt" / "Rome was captured by the Goths under their leader Alaric,
where they enjoyed their victory with compassion." The first sentence of Prosper's note,
"Roma a Gothis Alarico duce capta" / "Rome was captured by the Goths under their
leader Alaric" (1240), has been copied verbatim, but Cassiodorus has added a note on the
Goths' behaviour. The fact that the Goths stayed in Rome for only three days, that many
lives were spared and that churches and church property were untouched was noted by
ancient authors, particularly by Orosius and Augustine,343 and was well-known in
antiquity. It is not impossible, then, that Cassiodorus added this detail from his own
memory to smooth over the fact that a Gothic army had invaded and sacked the city.
At 1205 Cassiodorus notes that Galla Placidia was sent to Constantinople:
"Placidia Augusta a fratre Honorio ob suspicionem invitatorum hostium cum Honorio et
Valentiniano filiis ad orientem mittitur" / "Placidia Augusta, because she was suspected
of inviting enemies, was sent to the east by her brother Honorius with her sons Honorius
and Valentinian." Prosper, again, is clearly the basic source for this note: "Placidia
Augusta a fratre Honorio pulsa Orientem cum Honorio et Valentiniano filiis petit" /
"Placidia Augusta was driven out by her brother Honorius and went to the east with her
341 Jordanes follows Cassiodorus on the battle of Pollentia, ascribing victory to the Goths, which again suggests that he found his information in Cassiodorus.
342 E.g. O'Donnell 1979, 38-39. 343 Augustine de civ. Dei 1.1, Orosius 7.39.1 and 7.39.15.
sons Honorius and Valentinian" (1280). Cassiodorus, however, added Honorius'
reasons for sending her away. The Gallic Chronicle of 452 also notes that "Placidia cum
insidias fratri tendere deprehensa esset, Romam exilio relegata" / "Placidia, after she was
caught plotting against her brother, was sent to Rome in exile,"345 but the charges against
her are even less specific than those in Cassiodorus. Olympiodorus gives much more
information about Placidia's move to Constantinople. He describes a close relationship
between Honorius and Placidia, his sister, that quickly went sour after her return from her
captivity and the death of Constantius. He notes that there were brawls in Ravenna
between the supporters of Honorius and Placidia, and that "nepifjv Y&P K&K£lPr|
nAfi0oc; Pappdpwv EK xfiq npog ASaoOAcpou avjixxcpeiac; KOCI EK xfic; npoc;
KtovrjT&UTlOP au^UY^a^" / "f°r Placidia was surrounded by a host of barbarians
because of her marriages to Ataulf and Constantius."346 Here barbarians are mentioned as
supporting Placidia, but even if these are the "hostes" mentioned by Cassiodorus there is
no suggestion of treason in Olympiodorus' narrative.
The accusation of "inuitati hostes" against Placidia sounds suspiciously like the
charges laid against Boniface, who was accused of having allowed the Vandals to cross
over into Africa in 429, and against Eudoxia, Valentinian's wife and Placidia's daughter-
in-law, who was accused of calling the Vandals into Italy in 455.347 As such, it may be a
doublet, particularly since Boniface was a close ally of Placidia, and since Placidia's exile
and the charges against Boniface were so close in time. But whether the accusation in
344 Placidia, in fact, had a son, Valentinian, and a daughter, Honoria. Some of the manuscripts of Prosper record this error (ZRHB), and the others do not.
345 Gallic Chronicle of 452, s.a. 423. Placidia went first to Rome, and then to Constantinople. 346 Olympiodorus frg. 38, trans. Blockley. 347 Malchus366.
247
Cassiodorus is a report of some genuine occurrence, or a mistake in his source or in his
reading of his source, it is clear that he had a source other than Prosper.
At 1215 Cassiodorus remarks on the migration of the Vandals into Africa: "Gens
Vandalorum a Gothis exclusa de Hispaniis ad Africam transit" / "The tribe of the Vandals,
driven out of Spain by the Goths, crossed over into Africa." Prosper's corresponding
note, "Gens Wandalorum ab Hispania ad Africam transit" / "The tribe of the Vandals
crosses over into Africa from Spain" (1294), is, again, clearly the basic source, but
Cassiodorus added "a Gothis exclusa" / "driven out by the Goths." Jordanes' note at this
point tells the same story in slightly more detail, even dated to the same consuls, again
suggesting that Jordanes took this information from Cassiodorus' Gothic History.34*
Jordanes goes on to say that Geiseric had already been invited into Africa by Boniface,349
which corresponds to the story told by Procopius, who only says that Boniface invited the
Vandals in from Spain.350
Hydatius records battles between the Vandals and the Visigoths under Wallia,
presumably conducted at the request of Ravenna after the return of Placidia, and also
battles between the Vandals and the Sueves.351 But these events are dated to 418 and 419,
well before the Vandal passage into Africa. According to Prosper, Wallia and his
Visigoths were then resettled in Aquitania in 419 (1271). Prosper also says that Castinus
348 "Videns Valia Vandalos in suis finibus, id est Spaniae solum, audaci temeritate ab interioribus partibus Galliciae, ubi eos fugaverat dudum Atauulfus, egressos et cuncta in praedas vastare, eo fere tempore, quo Hierius et Ardabures consules processissent, nee mora mox contra eos movit exercitum" / "Wallia, seeing the Vandals in his territory, that is the land of Spain, and that they, with brazen temerity, had come out of interior parts of Gallicia, where Ataulf had driven them long before, and that they were taking everything as spoils, at around the time when Hieries and Ardabures had become consuls, without delay moved his army against them" (Get. 32.166).
349 Get. 32.167. 350 Procopius 3.3.24-26. 351 Hydatius 67, and 71.
248
was sent to Spain to fight the Vandals in 422, and Hydatius further notes that his army
included Gothic auxiliaries.352
It is, then, unclear again where Cassiodorus took his information from. One might
imagine Cassiodorus using a very spare and compressed narrative which related Wallia's
battles with the Vandals and was followed immediately by the Vandal passage into Africa.
Or, if the expedition under Castinus with Gothic auxiliaries is the source for Cassiodorus'
claim that the Vandals were shut out of Spain by the Goths, we may well compare this
entry to another, that of 451, where Cassiodorus attributes the Roman victory over Attila
at the Catalaunian plains to the Gothic auxiliaries of Aetius. It is also possible, though
perhaps less likely, that he has added something from his own memory, simply on the
basis of the fact that he knew the Visigoths had been in Spain around these years. Again,
a Gothic action against the Vandals would bolster the reputation of the Ostrogothic
kingdom.
Finally, at 1215, Cassiodorus notes that "Aetius multis Francis caesis quam
occupaverant propinquam Rheno partem recipit Galliarum" / "Aetius slaughtered many
Franks and recaptured that part of Gaul next to the Rhine, which they had occupied." The
note is, again, clearly taken from Prosper, except that Cassiodorus has added the report of
enemy casualties: "Pars Galliarum propinqua Rheno, quam Franci possidendam
occupaverant, Aetii [comitis] armis recepta" / "The part of Gaul next to the Rhine, which
the Franks had occupied in order to settle it, was recaptured through the arms of the
comes Aetius" (1298). Aetius' battles with the Franks at this time are not well attested,
352 Prosper, Hydatius s.a. 422.
noted here and also by Hydatius, who dates them to 432.
Clearly then, Cassiodorus added information to some of Prosper's entries, but
there is no one extant source which could be the source of all the information. Having
examined both Cassiodorus' techniques of epitomization and the additional details he
adds to Prosper's notes between 379 and 445, we can now turn to the problem first
addressed by Mommsen: which version of Prosper Cassiodorus used, and whether the
additional material in Cassiodorus' Chronica is due to his use of a source in addition to
Prosper or a source upon which Prosper also drew.
Cassiodorus includes historical material in his years between 446 and 455 which
Prosper does not have, but the verbal similarities between those years are difficult to
explain by other means than a use of Prosper by Cassiodorus. As I will show, it may well
be best to account for both the extra material in Cassiodorus and the verbal similarities
with Prosper by assuming that Cassiodorus combined Prosper and another source or
sources, in exactly the same way has he did for the years between 379 and 445.
Mommsen decided that Cassiodorus had used Prosper's version of 445, and that
he drew on a source in common with Prosper for the years 446 to 455 because of the
additional information Cassiodorus has, and which Prosper does not, combined with the
similarities the two exhibit. The following chart shows the parallel entries in Cassiodorus'
and Prosper's chronicles between 450 and 455, with Cassiodorus' additional material in
italics and the verbal similarities in bold. As was the case for the years between 379 and
445, Cassiodorus has no entries which are not matched by something relating the same
353 Hydatius. s.a432.
event in Prosper. There follows below a chart with all of Cassiodorus's historical notes
between 446 and 455 with their parallel entries in Prosper. I will treat each pair in
chronological order.
Cassiodorus
His conss Theodosius moritur. Post quern Marcianus adscitur imperio qui regnavit annis VII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XLV
His conss Romani Aetio duce Gothis auxiliaribus contra Attilam in campos Catalaunicos pugnaverunt. qui virtute Gothorum superatus abscessit.
His conss Attila redintegratis viribus Aquileiam magna vi dimicans introivit. Cum quo a Valentiniano imperatore papa
Year
450
451
452
Prosper
Theodosio imperatore defuncto et Chrysafio praeposito, qui amicitia principis male usus fuerat, interempto Marcianus consensione totius exercitus suscepit regnum, vir gravissimus et non solum rei publicae, sed etiam ecclesiae pernecessarius.
Attila post necem fratris auctus opibus interempti multa vicinarum sibi gentium milia cogit in bellum, quod Gothis tantum se inferre tamquam custos Romanae amicitiae denuntiabat. sed cum transito Rheno saevissimos eius impetus multae Gallicanae urbes experirentur, cito et nostris et Gothis placuit, ut furori superborum hostium consociatis exercitibus repugnaretur, tantaque patricii Aetii providentia fuit, ut raptim congregatis undique bellatoribus viris adversae multitudini non impar occurreret, in quo conflictu quamvis neutris cedentibus inaestimabiles strages commorientium factae sint, Chunos tamen eo constat victos fuisse, quod amissa proeliandi fiducia qui superfuerant ad propria reverterunt.
Attila redintegratis viribus, quas in Gallia amiserat, Italiam ingredi per Pannonias intendit, nihil duce nostro
354 Cassiodorus has no historical entries for the years 445 to 449, and Prosper has only an ecclesiastical note for 448, which Cassiodorus would not include in his own work because he generally avoided ecclesiastical issues. But the fact that neither author has events for these years suggests that either Cassiodorus was using Prosper or an epitome of Prosper, rather than that both were drawing on the same source.
251
Leo directus pacem fecit.
His conss Attila in sedibus suis moritur.
His conss Aetius patricius in palatio manu Valentiniani imperatoris extinctus est. Boetius vero praefectus pretorio amicus eius circumstantium gladiis interemptus.
His conss in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii Valentinianus occiditur. post quern
453
454
455
Aetio secundum prioris belli opera prospiciente, ita ut ne clusuris quidem Alpium, quibus hostes prohiberi poterant, uteretur, hoc solum spebus suis superesse existimans, si ab omni Italia cum imperatore discederet. sed cum hoc plenum dedecoris et periculi videretur, continuit verecundia metum, et tot nobilium provinciarum latissima eversione credita est saevitia et cupiditas hostilis explenda, nihilque inter omnia consilia principis ac senatus populique Romani salubrius visum est, quam ut per legatos pax truculentissimi regis expeteretur. suscepit hoc negotium cum viro consulari Avieno et viro praefectorio Trygetio beatissimus papa Leo auxilio dei fretus, quern sciret numquam piorum laboribus defuisse. nee aliud secutum est quam praesumpserat fides, nam tota legatione dignanter accepta ita summi sacerdotis praesentia rex gavisus est, ut et bello abstinere praeciperet et ultra Danuvium promissa pace discederet.
Attila in sedibus suis mortuo magna primum certamina de optinendo regno exorta sunt, deinde aliquot gentium, quae Chunis parebant, defectus secuti causas et occasiones bellis dederunt, quibus ferocissimi populi mutuis incursibus contererentur.
[origins of hatred between Aetius and Valentinian] unde Aetius imperatoris manu et circumstantium gladiis intra palatii penetralia crudeliter confectus est, Boetio praetorii praefecto simul perempto, qui eidem multa amicitia copulabatur
Mortem Aetii mors Valentiniani non longo post tempore consecuta est, tarn
252
Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur. Eodem anno per Ginsericum omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est. Post Maximum Avitus in Gallias sumit imperium.
imprudenter non declinata, ut interfector Aetii amicos armigerosque eius sibimet consociaret. qui concepti facinoris opportunitatem dissimulanter aucupantes egressum extra urbem principem et ludo gestationis intentum inopinatis ictibus confoderunt, Heraclio simul, ut erat proximus, interempto et nullo ex multitudine regia ad ultionem tanti sceleris accenso. ut autem hoc parricidium perpetratum et, Maximus vir gemini consulatus et patriciae dignitatis sumpsit imperium. qui cum periclitanti rei publicae profuturus per omnia crederetur, non sero documento, quid animi haberet, provabit, si quidem interfectores Valentiniani non solum non plecterit, sed etiam in amicitiam receperit uxoremque eius Augustam amissionem viri lugere prohibitam intra paucissimos dies in coniugium suum transire coegerit. sed hac incontinentia non diu potitus est. nam post alterum mensem nuntiato ex Africa Gisirici regis adventu multisque nobilibus ac popularibus ex urbe fugientibus cum ipse quoque data cunctis abeundi licentia trepide vellet abscedere a famulis regiis dilaniatus est et membratim deiectus in Tiberim sepultura quoque caruit. post hunc Maximi exitum confestim secuta est multis digna lacrimis Romana captivitas et urbem omni praesidio vacuam Gisiricus optinuit, occurrente sibi extra portas sancto Leone episcopo, cuius supplicatio ita cum deo agente lenivit, ut, cum omnia potestati ipsius essent tradita, ab igni tamen et caede atque suppliciis abstineretur. per quattuordecim igitur dies secura et libera scrutatione
253
omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est multaque milia captivorum, prout quique aut aetate aut arte placuerunt, cum regina et filiabus eius Cartaginem abducta sunt.
In 450, the death of Theodosius and the accession of Marcian is noted.
Cassiodorus gives the length of his reign, seven years, whereas Prosper does not. This
need not mean that Cassiodorus took the information from another source; he could
easily have counted the years himself, and there is reason to believe that the version of
the consularia which he used did not include regnal years.355
In 451, Cassiodorus notes "Romani Aetio duce Gothis auxiliaribus contra Attilam
in campos Catalaunicos pugnaverunt. qui virtute Gothorum superatus abscessit," / "The
Romans, under the leadership of Aetius, with Gothic auxiliaries, fought on the
Catalaunian plains against Attila, who was overcome by the strength of the Goths and
departed." Prosper's note is much longer, and, though the Goths are mentioned, his
statement that "cito et nostris et Gothis placuit, ut furori superborum hostium consociatis
exercitibus repugnaretur," / "quickly it seemed good both to our people and the Goths,
that the madness of the proud enemies by repelled our allied armies" suggests an equality
between the Roman and Gothic forces which Cassiodorus' does not. Cassiodorus,
however, gives the place, the Catalaunian plains, which Prosper does not, and notes that
Attila was defeated due to the valour of the Goths, whereas Prosper clearly states that,
though Attila did withdraw afterwards, neither side was a clear winner.356
355 See below, p. 260.
356 Jordanes, like Cassiodorus, gives the place, the Catalaunian plains (191, 197). Jordanes' narrative of the battle is long, and he notes that the Ostrogoths fought on the side of Attila. Though he does not explicitly attribute Aetius' victory to his Visigothic allies, he does give them pride of place in his
In 452, Cassiodorus includes the note about Attila's attack on Aquileia, which
Prosper leaves out: "Attila...Aquileiam magna vi dimicans introivit" / "Attila, fighting
with great violence, entered Aquileia." The capture of Aquileia is recorded in several
other western sources, including one manuscript of Prosper.357
The note on the murder of Aetius is noteworthy for the use of the same phrases,
but, if Cassiodorus used Prosper directly at this point, he either miscopied or altered his
source. Whereas Cassiodorus says, "Aetius patricius in palatio manu Valentiniani
imperatoris extinctus est. Boetius vero praefectus pretorio amicus eius circumstantium
gladiis interemptus," / "Aetius the patrician was killed in the palace by the hand of the
emperor Valentinian. And Boethius the praetorian prefect, his friend, was murdered by
the swords of those standing around him," Prosper, using very similar language, says,
"Aetius imperatoris manu et circumstantium gladiis intra palatii penetralia crudeliter
confectus est, Boetio praetorii praefecto simul perempto, qui eidem multa amicitia
copulabatur," / "Aetius was killed by the hand of the emperor and the swords of those
standing around him in the heart of the palace, and Boethius the praetorian prefect was
murdered at the same time, who was bound to him by great friendship." The details (the
assassins, the place, the victims, their friendship) are the same, but Cassiodorus attributes
Aetius' death to Valentinian alone, and Boethius' to others, whereas Prosper says that both
were cut down by more than one man.358 It is not like Cassiodorus to change details
without reason, so it seems likely that this is what he read in his source.
narrative (209-210). 357 The Haf. s.a. 452, Agnellus 32, Marcellinus sa. 452, Ann. Rav. s.a. 452 (p. 129), Jordanes Get. 42
(from Priscus). 358 To this shift of the phrase "circumstantium gladiis" we may compare the shift of the phrase "mira
felicitate" at 1211, which I discussed above.
Finally, in 455 Cassiodorus notes that "in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii
Valentinianus occiditur. post quern Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos menses a
militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur. Eodem anno per Ginsericum omnibus opibus suis
Roma vacuata est," / "Valentinian was killed in the campus Martius by the friends of
Aetius. Maximus took power after his death, but within two months he was killed by the
soldiers and thrown into the Tiber. In the same year, Rome was emptied of all her
treasures by Geiseric." Prosper has almost all the information in a much longer note,
except that he does not include the detail "in campo Martio," writing instead the less
specific, but perhaps more dramatic "egressum extra urbem principem et ludo gestationis
intentum," / "the emperor, having gone out of the city and intent on the pleasure of being
carried in a litter." The "campus Martius" referred to is a campus by the imperial villa Ad
duas lauros, which other authors mention by name. Prosper knows the event happened
outside the city, but his details are hazy.
In the same note, Cassiodorus says that Maximus was killed within two months,
whereas Prosper says he was killed "after the second month," a time which corresponds
to our other sources for this event, which give the length of Maximus' reign as
somewhere over seventy days.359
And yet there are several clear verbal similarities between Prosper and
Cassiodorus which point to the use of Prosper by Cassiodorus. For the year 452,
Cassiodorus and Prosper introduce their historical notes with the same ablative absolute
"Attila, redintegratis viribus" / "Attila, with his strength renewed." In 453 Cassiodorus'
359 FVpr, Gallic Chronicle of 511, Marcellinus, and Victor of Tunnuna, all s.a. 455. Paul the Deacon, discussed below, also records the length of Maximus' reign as under two months (14.16).
"Attila in sedibus suis moritur" / "Attila died in his own home" corresponds almost
exactly with Prosper's "Attila in sedibus suis mortuo" / "when Attila had died in his own
home," and is similar to Cassiodorus' practice in epitomizing Jerome of changing a
participle (mortuo) to a finite verb (moritur).3601 have noted above the similarities in the
description of the assassination of Aetius and Boethius. Finally, in 455, the phrase
"omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est" is exactly the same in Prosper. The simplest way
to explain these close similarities to Prosper is to say that Cassiodorus was, at this point,
still using Prosper, but was epitomizing drastically and adding a few notes from his other
sources.
We have seen in the discussions above of Cassiodorus' compression of historical
entries both from Jerome and from the section of Prosper from 379 to 445 that
Cassiodorus often shortened both Jerome and Prosper's entries, but for the most part
tends not to render the information he gets from his sources into his own words. He does,
however, as we have also seen, not only occasionally engage in considerable rewriting,
but also blends additional material into his primary source, Prosper. Prosper's individual
notes for the years 446 to 455 required more compression than those between 379 and
445. They are much longer and contain a great deal of information because they were
written by a contemporary.
Cassiodorus' methods then, for the years 379 to 445 and from 445 to 455, appear
to be the same. Noteworthy as well is the fact that, as with the years 379 to 445,
Cassiodorus wrote no entries for the years 446 to 455 which do not have a corresponding
360 E.g. Jerome 236g "effectus," Cassiodorus 1081 "efficitur"; Jerome 2231 "exorta," Cassiodorus 1001 "exorta est" and many others.
entry in Prosper. Despite the fact that Cassiodorus appears to have made a change in
historical detail when he slightly altered the story of the assassination of Aetius and
Boethius, it seems safest to say that he used Prosper's version of 455, and continued to
use other sources for the extra details, as he had done from at least 380.
What then, can we say about the source of the extra material which Cassiodorus
added to Prosper's entries? Some of it, as I have noted, is clearly from Cassiodorus' own
pen. For the rest, it is not at all certain they are even from the same source. If the notes
are all from the same work we might imagine a pro-Gothic source, given the number of
notes which stress Gothic prowess, and which correct elements of Gothic history, but it
could also simply be the case that Cassiodorus chose specifically Gothic material from
his secondary source to indulge his audience.
The fact that Cassiodorus only updates notes in Prosper, and does not include
entire notes which have no parallel entry in Prosper, might suggest that this source was
not dated by consuls, so Cassiodorus could only accurately date events which matched
those he found in Prosper. This kind of dating could account for note 1214, which seems
to attribute to the Goths the Vandal departure from Spain. We know he used Eutropius
alongside Jerome, and we could easily imagine a now-lost extension of Eutropius which
Cassiodorus used after Eutropius had ended.
On the other hand, as will be made clear in what follows, Cassiodorus had a
version of the Italian consularia which he used from 456 to at least 493 for his historical
events. There is nothing to suggest that that document did not start a good deal earlier
than the end of Prosper's chronicle, and every reason to think that it probably did. The
additional material which he added to Prosper could easily have come from there.
Cassiodorus and the Italian Consularia
Mommsen was surely right when he suggested that Cassiodorus must have used a
version of the Italian consularia as his source for historical events from 456 to 519, the
years following the end of his copy of Prosper.361 The Consularia Italica, a now-lost
document covering events primarily related to Italy in the late fourth and early fifth
centuries, including material related to the empire as a whole, was originally begun and
maintained at Ravenna from near the end of the fourth century. The document spread to
other parts of the empire and was copied, shortened, added to, translated and used by a
wide variety of authors as raw source material and a chronological framework for
historical writing. The use of the document, or some form of it, can be seen through
certain touch-stone events which are described in the same way (such as Attila's
destruction of Aquileia and the death of Marcellinus in Sicily), through very specific
dates which are given in a variety of authors, through common errors, through words and
phrases common to several documents, and through the broad similarities of selection of
detail. The existence of the document was first posited by Mommsen and Holder-Egger
in the nineteenth century, and has been the subject of extensive research recently by
Richard Burgess.362
As we have seen, Cassiodorus would naturally use a source which at least was
carefully dated, so that he could assign events to consulships with relative ease. Holder-
361 Mommsen 1894, p. 113. 362 In what follows I am deeply indebted to Burgess' work, in particular unpublished sections of Mosaics
of Time, forthcoming, and especially for a list of events from the fourth century, cross-referenced with the authors from the consularia tradition who record them.
Egger, in his seminal article on the "Ravenna Annals," assembled and discussed at great
length the work which he (and others) believed lay behind many of our sources for the
fifth and sixth centuries - consularia written and maintained by someone living in
Ravenna between the middle of the fifth century and on into the sixth which Holder-
Egger named "Ravenna Annals," but which I refer to here as the Consularia Italica,
following Mommsen's name for them.363 Based on his comparison of Cassiodorus'
material with the FVpr, Paul the Deacon and the Anonymus Valesianus, he concluded that
Cassiodorus had used an early version of these Ravenna Annals, but also another
consularia which had information particularly about Rome and Roman events.364
Holder-Egger posited several different recensions of the Ravenna Annals which
helped to explain the large number of differences and similarities among the various
authors who used them. Cassiodorus, he maintained, used a version which ended around
493, like that of the FVpr. For the events after 493 Cassiodorus relied on his own
knowledge of contemporary events. In what follows I will map out carefully the evidence
for Cassiodorus' use of a version of the Italian consularia, which Holder-Egger called the
"Ravenna Annals."
The sheer number of different consularia which have come down to us makes it
likely that Cassiodorus would have had some choice about which one he used. On the
assumption that any historical note dating from the time of Cassiodorus' public service or
after could have been added to the Chronica by Cassiodorus himself from his own
experience and memory, I will discuss in what follows only the historical entries from
363 Holder-Egger 1876. The term "Ravenna Annals" should not be confused with the so-called Merseburg fragment, published by Bischoffand Koehler in 1939. See bibliography.
364 Holder-Egger 1876, p. 250.
260
452 to the beginning of the sixth century to establish a picture of the source which lies
behind Cassiodorus' entries for the last years of his Chronica.
First, the consular list. Cassiodorus' introduction says clearly that his main
intention was to restore "historica fides" / "historical trustworthiness" to the fasti. But he
chose as his trustworthy source for a consular list the Cursus Paschalis of Victorius. I
suggested above that he did so because he knew how much variety there was in the
consular lists circulating in his day, variety he attributed to the "librarii" or booksellers. It
is therefore possible that the consularia he used for his historical notes was deficient in its
consular list. That said, there is only one historical note in his own work (which can be
verified elsewhere) which he misdates,365 so his version of the consularia must have had
at least the western consuls, if not a full list of eastern ones, which made it possible for
him to place the historical notes correctly in his consular list.
Although Cassiodorus had followed Jerome's practice of numbering the emperors,
his source does not appear to have done so, since the numbers tail off towards the end.
Leo is given his number, forty-sixth, after the death of Marcian (1268), but neither Zeno
nor Anastasius are assigned numbers. Since Cassiodorus, like Prosper, numbered the
senior Augustus, none of the western emperors after Honorius is numbered either.366
Cassiodorus' work lacks the precise dating to the day which many of the
consularia have, though it is not without precision in a few spots. We are told that
Maximus was killed "intra duos menses" / "within two months" of his usurpation after
365 The death of Ovida in Dalmatia (1309), which he dates to 481 instead of 482. 366 Zeno is given the correct number of years of his reign (1298). Anastasius is not given any number. See
above, p. 10. Zeno was incorrectly assigned a number by the copyist of the Paris manuscript, see the critical apparatus to the text of the Chronica, 1300. Theodosius II is, oddly, numbered as the forty-fourth emperor, though he had been numbered, along with his uncle Honorius, as the forty-third as well. Cassiodorus is clearly counting different regnal combinations, not individual emperors.
261
the murder of Valentinian (1260). We are clearly told that Ricimer died forty days after
the murder of Anthemius (1293), though we are not told the precise date of either
death.367 We are told that Olybrius died in the seventh month of his reign (1293), but we
are given no precise date for either the beginning or the end.368 Particularly the FVpr, the
Paschale Campanum and, to a lesser degree, the continuations of Prosper, give specific
dates, but Cassiodorus does not. It may be that his source did not either, but it is more
likely that he excised the particulars in order to make his work homogenous from
beginning to end, since his sources before the fifth century do not include specific dates.
Cassiodorus, as we have seen, strove for a very brief and bland style, cutting back
Jerome's and Prosper's longer historical notes, and - usually - leaving out their editorial
comments on historical events. Thus the picture painted of Ricimer, the strong-man
behind the imperial throne of several emperors between 456 and 472, seems a little odd.
He is blamed not only for the deaths of Majorian and Anthemius (1274, 1293) - charges
with which our other sources agree - but also for the death of Severus by poison (1280), a
charge which no one else makes.369 Furthermore, after the murder of Anthemius, Ricimer
is reported "non diutius peracto scelere gloriatus'V'not to have rejoiced in his crime for
very long" before he died - an editorial comment on Ricimer's character if ever there was
one. As I will demonstrate below when I discuss Paul the Deacon, Cassiodorus adopted
this negative portrayal of Ricimer from his source.
367 We are given precise, though different, dates by both the FVpr (607) and the Paschale Campanum (sa. 472).
368 The FVpr (609) and the Paschale Campanum (sa. 472) again give conflicting dates. Jordanes says that Olybrius died in the eighth month of his reign (Get. 239).
369 Sidonius Appolinaris (Pan. 11.317-318) explicitly says that Severus died of natural causes, which some have interpreted as a deliberately ironic swipe at Ricimer. See Oost, 1970, and MacGeorge, 2002,231-233.
In other respects there is very little in terms of style or political outlook to
distinguish Cassiodorus' Chronica, and, by extension, his source, from the other
consularia of the period. He gives a small handful of details which no other source
does,370 but he notes the major events in Italian history in the last half of the fifth century
just as the others do, often without drawing clear connections among them, causal or
otherwise.371 Cassiodorus' chronology of the invasion of Italy by Theoderic is, as one
would expect, better than that of the other Italian consularia. He dates the entrance of
Theoderic into Italy and the skirmish at the Isonzo river to the consulship of Probinus and
Eusebius, which is correct.372 Cassiodorus alone gives us the correct time-structure for the
entire campaign against Odovacar.
Holder-Egger, who was the first to compare the Chronica with the Fasti
Vindobonenses Priores. He argued that the FVpr are the most representative of the
Consularia Italica, and this document is regularly the one he compares other sources
with. But we must remember that the FVpr, like all the other representatives of the
consularia tradition, are a single offshoot of a multi-branched tradition. Holder-Egger
concluded that Cassiodorus had used, if not the FVpr themselves, a document very like
them, and had supplemented the material he found there with information from Roman
consularia and from his own knowledge.
But only a full comparison of Cassiodorus' material with all the other surviving
370 Majorian's expedition against Africa; the attribution of Severus' death to poisoning by Ricimer; the place where Anthemius was named emperor, Brontodas, otherwise unknown; the place of the battle between Odovacar and Theoderic as "ad pontem Candidiani"; the cessation of hostilities in Sicily by the Vandals after Theoderic's victory; and many details on Theoderic's visit to Rome in 500.
371 See Burgess, Mosaics for more on the interconnection among the various versions of the Italian consularia.
372 The FVpr and the Consularia Hafniensia date it to 490. Marcellinus and Marius of Avenches have the correct date as well.
263
witnesses of the consularia tradition in Italy will provide any secure footing for where
Cassiodorus fits into the tradition. In what follows I will investigate each historical note
in Cassiodorus and its parallels in the other authors.373 The different representatives of the
tradition have different characteristics. The Fasti Vindobonenses, the Consularia
Hafniensia, the Gallic Chronicle, and the Paschale Campanum, for instance, are typically
terse, brief, and display only very simple grammatical constructions. These three are also
more likely to include specific dates than the others. Those with names attached to them,
like Cassiodorus, Marcellinus, Marius of Avenches and Victor of Tunnuna are of higher
literary quality, and are less likely to give specific dates. Others, like the Anonymus
Valesianus and Paul the Deacon's Historia Romana, are prose histories which may draw
on several different sources to stitch together a narrative.
As will be seen, there are a handful of notes in Cassiodorus which demonstrate his
use of a document in the Consularia Italica tradition, either through similarity of wording
or through similarity of detail with others who drew on the same tradition, though not
necessarily the same document. There are also many differences or omissions of specific
detail. On the whole, however, it seems likely to me that Cassiodorus used only a single
source for his historical material from 456 (the first year after Prosper's work ended) to
around 500, when he seems to begin to draw on his own memory. This particular
373 Burgess, Mosaics, identifies twenty-one authors and documents which stem from the tradition of the Consularia Italica, not all of which are relevant to my study. The ones I refer to are, in alphabetical order, Agnellus (Agn.), the Anonymus Valesianus (AV), the Gallic Chronicle of 511 (GC511), the Consularia Ravennatia (Cons.Rav.), the Fasti Vindobonensesposteriores (FVpost), the Fasti Vindobonenses priores (FVpr), the Histories of Gregory of Tours (GregT), the Consularia Hafniensia (Haf.), Marius of Avenches (MarA), Marcellinus comes (Marc), the Paschale Campanum (PC), Paul the Deacon (PD), Theophanes (Theoph.), the Vatican epitome of Prosper (Vat.Epit.), the Vatican continuation of Prosper (Vat. Auct.), and Victor of Tunnuna (Vict.). In the examples I use, I always place Cassiodorus' note first.
representative of the consulana tradition, however, began in at least 452.
In the year 452 and Cassiodorus notes the destruction of Aquileia. There, as we
saw in the section on Prosper, whose chronicle ended in 455, Cassiodorus inserted an
additional note which was not drawn from Prosper, but which shares similarity with
several other authors in the consularia tradition:
Cass. Attila redintegratis viribus Aquileiam magna vi dimicans introivit.
Cum quo a Valentiniano imperatore papa Leo directus pacem fecit.
(1255)
Agn: et capta et fracta est Aquileia ab Hunis. (42)
CG511: Regrediens Attila Aquileiam frangit.
ConsRav: Aquileia fracta est XV kal Aug.
GregT: Attila vero cum paucis reversus est, nee multo post Aquileia a
Chunis capta, incensa atque deruta. (2.7)
Marc: Aquileia civitas ab Attila Hunnorum rege excisa est.
Theoph: Touxu) TW ETEI...KGCI ATTIAOCC; EKOCUCTE xf)v AKUAIOCV noAiv.
(107)
Vat. Epit.: Aquileia fracta est.
Haf: Aquileia et Mediolanum et nonnullae aliae urbes ab Attilane
subversae.
PD: ac primum Aquileiam civitatem in ipso Italiae sitam principio
expugnare adgressus est; quam continuo triennio obsidens [mostly
from Jordanes except the length of the siege]
As can been seen from the examples, the destruction of Aquileia is an extremely
common note to find in the histories of this period. Cassiodorus' note about the
intervention of Leo is taken partly from Prosper, though the detail that Leo was sent by
Valentinian is not, and there is no parallel for it.
Cassiodorus next note (1258), on the death of Attila, is taken from Prosper, as is
the note on the killing of Aetius and Boethius by Valentinian (1260) I have noted above
the changes Cassiodorus made to Prosper's wording, but there is no witness to those
changes to be found in the consularia tradition.
The notes on the death of Valentinian and varied and interesting:
Cass.: in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii Valentinianus occiditur. (1262)
Agn: qui triginta et unum annis in imperio durans Romae occisus est in
loco qui vocatur ad Laurum.
CG511: Valentinianus occiditur foris Romae. (623)
FVpost: XV374
GregT: Ipse postmodum Augustus dum in campo Martio pro tribunali
resedens concionaretur ad populum, Occila, buccellarius Aeti, ex
adverso veniens, eum gladio perfodit. (2.8)
Haf: [Egressum extra] portam [principem] et in campo Martio pro
tribunali in sexto ad duos lauros residentem [et ludo gestationis
intentum] veniente ex adverso Accilane Aetii bucillario simulque
veniente Trasilane genero Aetii insperatis et [inopinatis ictibus
confoderunt].375
Marc: Valentinianus princeps dolo Maximi patricii, cuius etiam fraude
Aetius perierat, in campo Martio per Optilam et Thraustilam Aetii
satellites iam percusso Heraclio spadone truncatus est.
PD: nam et ipse anno sequenti a Transila Aetii milite cum triginta annis
imperium gessisset, confossus interiit. (14.15)
Vict: Valentinianus imp Romae campo Martio dolis Maximi patricii et
Heraclii praepositi perimitur.
374 Only the date is given by the FVpost. 375 The material in square brackets indicates Prosper's entry, which was expanded on in the Consularia
Hafniensia.
I have already noted how Prosper knew that the assassination was outside the city,
but only in the consularia tradition do we find the real place: a "campus Martius" at the
imperial villa Ad duos Lauros, outside the city. Here for the second time we have a
possible tie between Cassiodorus and the consularia tradition. The Consularia
Hafniensia, Marcellinus, Victor of Tunnuna and Gregory of Tours all place the killing "in
campo Martio," as does Cassiodorus.
The accession and death of Maximus, which occurred in the same year as the
murder of Valentinian shows similar congruence of detail, but also some differences.
Cass: post quern [Valentinian] Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos
menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur.
CG511: post quern Maximus diebus LXX adeptus imperium: nam terrore
Wandalorum tumultu vulgi occisus est. (623)
FVpr: et levatus est Maximus imp. XVI kl. April, et occisus est prid. idus
Iun.
Haf: [Maximus vir gemini consulatus et patriciae dignitatis] alia die XIIII
k. April, [sumpsit imperium.]
Marc: Idem Maximus invasit imperium tertioque tyrannidis suae mense
membratim Romae a Romanis discerptus est.
PD: Mortuo Valentiniano regni iura Maximus apud urbem invadens nee
dum duobus expletis mensibus a Romanis peremptus est. (14.16)
Vat.Auct.: XVI kl April prid kl Iun
Vict: idemque Maximus exconsule ac patricius sumit imperium diebus
LXXVII...occisus membratimque concisus in Tiberim fluvium
proiectus est.
Theoph: Ti^Epixou 6E axoAtp UEY&ACO EKnAeuaavxoQ eiq 'Pwunv,
M&^iuoq (poPr)0£i<; (pvyf\ sxpfiaaxo- oi 6e OVVOVTEC; OCUTCQ
OCPEIAOV OCUTOV paaiXEuaavxa ETOC; EV. (108)
267
The dates here are varied, and almost all are different from each other. The FVpr
put Maximus' accession on 17 March and his death on 12 June, which makes eighty-eight
days. The Vatican continuation of Prosper has the same accession date, but puts his death
on 31 May, which makes seventy-five days. The Hafniensia only give the accession date,
March 19, but give no end date and no length of his reign. The Gallic Chronicle of 511
gives seventy days, and Victor of Tunnuna seventy-seven days. Marcellinus only says "in
the third month." Cassiodorus and Paul the Deacon both give the length of Maximus'
reign as under two months, which cannot be correct given that our precise dates and
Marcellinus give him around three months. The common error of Cassiodorus and Paul is
noteworthy, and suggests that they used a similar source.
In the same set of notes, Victor, Marcellinus and Cassiodorus all agree that
Maximus was thrown into the river. On the other hand, Marcellinus and Paul say that he
was killed "a Romanis" and the Gallic Chronicle that he was killed "tumultu vulgi,"
whereas Cassiodorus alone says that he was killed "a militibus."
Cassiodorus' next note, on the sack of Rome by Geiseric, was taken from Prosper,
though it is frequently noted in the consularia tradition. Cassiodorus' note on the
accession of Avitus is a very common one in our sources:
Cass.: Post Maximum Avitus in Gallias sumit imperium.
CG511: et post Avitus imperator. (623)
Fvpost: et 1. e. in Galliis A. imp.
FVpr: et levatus est imp. in Gallis Avitus VI idus Iulias.
Haf: Post Maximi caedem Avitus in Galliis apud Arelas imperium sumpsit
VII id. Iulias.
268
MarA: levatus est Avitus imperator in Gallias.
PD: Recedente igitur ab urbe Geiserico Romani sequenti mense
exinanitae rei publicae imperatorem Habitum praeficiunt. (14.19)
VatAuct: Nam Avitus in Galliis imperator efficitur.
Vict: huius captivitatis (Romae) LXXV die Avitus vir totius simplicitatis
in Galliis imperium sumit.
Theoph: KCU UET& <XI)TOV> Aprixoq xf)i> xfjc; 'PcauriQ PaaiXsiav EKpaxricrsv
emauxouq P'. (109)
Of all the sources, only Paul the Deacon and - oddly - the Gallic Chronicle of
511 do not add the detail "in Galliis" or "in Gallias." Avitus' deposition in the following
year at Placentia is also frequently noted:
Cass.: His conss Placentiae deposuit Avitus imperium.
MarA: His consulibus deiectus est Avitus imperator a Maioriano et
Recemere Placentia et factus est episcopus in civitate. (sa. 456)
FVpr: His cons occisus est Remistus patricius in palatio Classis XV kl
Octob et captivus est imp Placentia a magis. mil Ricimere et occisus
est Messiam patricius eius XVI kl Nov
CG511: et Avitus occisus est a Maioriano comite domesticorum Placentiae.
Haf: imperator Avitus Placentiam cum sociorum robore ingressens, quern
cum magna vi exercitus magis ter militum Recimer excepit.
commisso proelio Avitus cum magna suorum caede terga vertit,
quern vitae reservatum Eusebius episcopus ex imperatore episcopum
facit. interfectus in eo proelio Missianus patricius Aviti XV k.
Novemb.
GregT: Avitus enim unus ex senatoribus et - valde manefestum est - civis
Arvernus, cum Romanum ambisset imperium, luxoriosae agere
volens, a senatoribus proiectus, apud Placentiam urbem episcopus
ordenatur. (2.11)
269
Theoph: Koti UE6' finepaQ K0' eviKr|0r| AUITOC; uno 'PEUIKOU KOU YEYOVEV
Eiq noAiv nAaKEimoa* eiq TaAAiaq. (109)
VatAuct: Avitus privatur imperio.
Vict: Ricimirus patricius Avitum superat, cuius innocentiae parcens
Placentiae civitatis episcopum facit.
In the above entries the FVpr and the Hafniensia are clearly related in some way: both
give specific dates and the detail of Messianus' death. All the remaining entries but one
give the place of Avitus' deposition, Placentia. Cassiodorus, however, only notes that
"Avitus relinquished imperial power at Placentia" (1266), whereas the FVpr, the Cons.
Haf., Marius of Avenches and the Chron. Gall. 511 all clearly state that he was removed
by Ricimer. Considering the very negative picture of Ricimer in what follows in
Cassiodorus' work, the omission is notable. Holder-Egger suggests that Cassiodorus' note
is simply an example of Cassiodorus compressing his source,376 but we have seen in the
study of Jerome that Cassiodorus was, on the whole, careful to include the important
details. It is likely that Ricimer's role in Avitus' deposition was not in Cassiodorus' source.
The next entry, on the accessions of Majorian and Leo, appears in fewer
representatives of the consularia tradition.
Cass.: Marciano defuncto Leo orientis Maiorianus Italiae suscepit
imperium.
FVpr: levatus est imp. d.n. Maiorianus kald. April in miliario VI in campo
ad columellas.
CG511: Leo Constantinopoli ann XXI Maiorianus Romae cum Leone
regnavit ann III m VI
376 Holder-Egger 1876, pp. 248-249.
270
Vict: Maiorianus Romae imperium sumit. [but dated to the following
year]
PD: Maiorianus apud Ravennam invadit imperium. (15.1)
Cassiodorus' entry is too general to link it with any of the other notes on the two
accessions, but it is more than likely that he took it from his consularia source, and not,
for example, from a list of imperial reigns. Similarly, as we will see, three other pieces of
information about the eastern empire - the death of Aspar in Constantinople in 471
(1291), Leo's granting to his nephew the status of colleague in 473 (1296), and the death
of Leo and the accession of Zeno in 474 (1298) - also appear in some of the documents
in the consularia tradition.
In 458 Majorian began organizing an expedition against the Vandals, but it failed
while he was gathering his navy in Spain. The expedition is only recorded in three
sources, and only fully in one.
Cass.: Maiorianus in Africa movit procinctum.
CG511: Maiorianus ingressus Arelatem qui volens Africam proficisci naves
eius in Hispaniis a Wandalis captae sunt iuxta Carthaginem
Spartariam.
MarA: Maiorianus imperator profectus est ad Hispanias.
Still, it would be typical of Cassiodorus' method to cut back a note like that in the Gallic
Chronicle to a simpler form which transmitted the salient information without the details
of place.
The next note in Cassiodorus, on the death of Majorian and the accession of
Severus, is a common one in the tradition.
271
Cass.:
FVpr:
Mar A:
Marc.
CG511:
PD:
Theoph:
Vict:
Maiorianus inmissione Ricimeris extinguitur. cui Severum natione
Lucanum Ravennae succedere fecit in regnum.
his cons, depositus est Maiorianus imp. a patricio Ricimere Dertona
III non. Aug et occisus est ad fluvium Ira VII idus Aug. et levatus est
imp. do. n. Severus XIII kal. Decembr.
His consulibus deiectus est Maiorianus de imperio in civitate
Dertona a Recemere patricio, et interfectus est super Ira fluvio: et
levatus est Severus imperator Ravenna.
Maiorianus Caesar apud Dertonam iuxta fluvium, qui Hira dicitur
interemptus, locum eius Severus invasit.
Profectus autem ex Arelate ad Italiam a patricio Recimere acciditur
Dertona. et levatus est Severus de Lucaniis imperator simul et
consul.
quod cum prope quattuor annis obtinuisset, haud procul a Dertonensi
civitate iuxta Hiriam flumen occisus est statimque Severus apud
Ravennam imperator efficitur atque Augustus appellatur. (15.1)
Touxu) TW £T£i srjcp&Yri Ma'iopipoc; eiq Tapxicoua uno
'PEUIKIOU naxpiKiou, Kai &nr|p6r| sic; PaaiAsa Esufjpoq KOCI
ZspnevTioc; vwvaiq 'IouXiaiq. (112)
Maiorianus Romae occiditur et Severus imperium non. Iul. sumit.
Once again, the entries are fairly clearly related in some way. The FVpr, Marius,
Marcellinus, the Gallic Chronicle, and Paul all give the place, Dertona, and the same
documents, excepting the Gallic Chronicle, give the specific place on the river Ira. Again,
Cassiodorus has a shorter note with few specifics. He includes, rather oddly, a note about
Severus, the new emperor, being a Lucanian, which is paralleled by the entry in the
Gallic Chronicle which states the same thing. It is perhaps worth noting the similarities
between the Gallic Chronicle and Cassiodorus at this point. This entry and the two
272
previous are quite similar in both authors, and the note on Majorian's expedition to Africa
and Severus' origins are not attested elsewhere.
In 464, Ricimer fought a battle against the Alans at Bergamo, which is reported in
the consularia tradition:
Cass.: rex Halanorum Beorgor apud Pergamum a patricio Ricimere
peremptus est.
FVpr: his cons occisus est Beorgor rex Alanorum Bergamo ad pede montis
VIII idus Februarias.
Marc: Beorgor rex Halanorum a Ricimere rege occiditur.
PD: Tertio huius anno imperii Biorgor rex Alanorum cum exercitu
adveniens occurrente patricio Ricimere superatus non longe a
Pergamo civitate Venetiae atque extinctus est. (15.1)
Again, characteristically, the FVpr give a specific date, while the others do not, but they
are all still remarkably similar.
The death of Severus in 465 is noteworthy because Cassiodorus is the only author
to say that he was poisoned by Ricimer, though even Cassiodorus or his source appears to
be aware that it is only a rumour.
Cass: ut dicitur Ricimeris fraude Severus Romae in palatio veneno
peremptus est.
FVpr: his cons, defunctus est imp. Severus Rome XVIII kal. Septembris.
PC: Defunctus est Severus.
Marc: Severus, qui Occidentis arripuit principatum, Romae interiit.
CG511: Obiit Severus imperator.
PD: Severus vero cum quattuor annis imperasset. mortem propriam apud
urbem occubuit. (15.1)
Four of the six which report Severus' death, including Cassiodorus, place it at Rome, but
only the FVpr give the precise date.
In 467 Anthemius was sent by Leo to Rome to become the western emperor, and
he was proclaimed so just outside the city:
Cass.: Anthemius a Leone imperatore ad Italiam mittitur, qui tertio ab urbe
miliario in loco Brontotas suscepit imperium.
FVpr: levatus est imp. do. n. Anthemius Romae prid idus Aprilis.
PC: Antemius imperator efficitur.
MarA: levatus est Anthemius imperator.
Marc: Leo imperator Anthemium patricium Romam misit imperatoremque
constituit.
CG511: et levatus est Anthemius Romae ann V.
PD: Dehinc totius consensu militiae post Severi mortem iura imperii
Anthemius suscepit. (15.2)
Theoph: Tip 6' OCUTCO ETEI Kara npsaPeiav xfjc; auyKAfiTOu 'Pcouric;
dnsaxsiAe AECOP 6 PaaiAeuc; Av0iuiou, ibv yauPpov
MapKiauou xou npoPaaiAEuaauxoq, (iacxiAea iv 'Poour),
apSpa xpioTiaviKGOTaTov Koci EuasPwq if\v PaaiAeiav
iGuvovxa £xr) <;. (115)
Vict: Anthemius Romae imperium sumpsit.
In an odd twist from the normal state of affairs, in which Cassiodorus' notes are simple
and lack specifics, he is the only author to give the specific place, Brontodas, presumably
an imperial villa three miles from Rome, whereas the FVpr, Marcellinus, the Gallic
Chronicle and Victor say only that he was elevated at Rome. We have seen, though, that
Cassiodorus is particularly interested in Roman landmarks,377 and this may be the reason
377 See above, p. 21.
that he chose to include this piece of information from his source.
Marcellinus' death in Sicily in 468 is noted by four representatives of the
consularia tradition:
Cass.: in Sicilia Marcellinus occiditur.
FVpr: occisus est Marcellinus in Sicilia mense Aug.
PC: Marcellinus occiditur Sicilia.
Marc: Marcellinus Occidentis patricius idemque paganus dum Romanis
contra Vandalos apud Carthaginem pugnantibus opem auxiliumque
fert, ab iisdem dolo confoditur, pro quibus palam venerat
pugnaturus.
Here Marcellinus has a great deal of information that the others do not have, or do not
include. Cassiodorus' next two notes, on the trials and punishments of Arvandus and
Romanus, in 469 and 470 respectively (1287, 1289), are only noted by Paul, and will be
treated in the section which follows.
The murder of Aspar at Constantinople is an eastern event which appeared in the
consularia in the west.
Cass.: Constantinopoli affectator tyrannidis a Leone principe Aspar
occiditur.
Marc: Aspar primus patriciorum cum Ardabure et Patriciolo filiis, illo
quidem olim patricio, hoc autem Caesare generoque Leonis principis
appellate, Arrianus cum Arriana prole spadonum ensibus in palatio
vulneratus interiit.
Theoph: unorrroc; y^p, cor; npoetpnu, YEVOUEPOC; TW POXJIAEI 6 Aanap
KOCI noXAf]i> nspiKeiuEvoc; SUPOCUIP 66ACO napd xou PaaiAscoq
(povEUExai UETOC Ppaxi) uvv TOIC; CCUTOU naiaiu, Ap6aPoupico
KOCI naxpiKico, OP Kaiaapa 6 PaaiXeuq nenoir|Ke npoxepov,
IPCC xf)p Aanapog suuoiav exil- (117)
Vict: Aspar et duo filii eius Patricius Caesar et Ardaburius
Constantinopoli praecepto Leonis Augusti occiduntur.
PD: At vero in Orientis partibus Aspar patricius Leoni Augusto insidias
moliens suum filium Caesarem effecit. Leo victorem exercitum
statim ex Sicilia evocans Asparem patricium cum novello Caesare
filio alioque eius germano digno vitae multavit excidio. (15.2)
Cassiodorus, Paul and Theophanes all report that Aspar was plotting against Leo, giving a
reason for his murder, whereas Marcellinus has other information, preferring to focus on
Aspar's heresy than treachery, if it was in his source.
The civil war between Ricimer and Anthemius, the elevation of Olybrius, the
death of Anthemius, and the subsequent deaths of Ricimer and Olybrius, all occurred in
the same year, 473, and the chronology for the different events is confused and difficult,
and shows that there were different versions of the story in circulation. Cassiodorus first
remarks on the civil war, the elevation of Olybrius, and the death of Anthemius, who was
killed when he was found hiding in the church of S. Chrysogono in Trastevere:378
Cass.: patricius Ricimer Romae facto imperatore Olybrio Anthemium
contra reverentiam principis et ius adfinitatis cum gravi clade
civitatis extinguit.
FVpr: his cons bellum civile gestum est Romae inter Anthemium
imperatorem et Ricimere Patricio: et levatus est imp. Olybrius
Romae: et occisus est imp. Anthemius V idus Iulias.
PC: Bellum civile inter Antemium et Recimerem. occiditur Antemius V
id. Iul. levatur Olybrius.
Marc: Anthemius imperator Romae a Recimero genero suo occiditur.
378 Malalas, 374-374; John of Antioch frag. 209.1.
276
CG511: Anthemius imperator acto intra urbem civili bello a Ricimere genero
suo vel Gundebado extinctus est.
Theoph: EV 'IxaAia 6E 'PEKIUEP 6 crxpaxriYOc;, ou Kai npconv £uPr|CT0ni>,
YauPpoq 6E AV0EUIOU, xou suasPcoq ev 'Pwuri PacriAEuaavxoc;,
Enapiaraxai xto 16ico Kr|6£crxfi. Kai IIOAEUOU Kpaxouuxoq TT\V
Xwpau, Aiuooxxouoav ouxcoc; ai xou PaaiAEooc; 6uvdu£ic;, wc;
Kai fJupaoov Kai aAAaiu dr|0cop a\|/aa0ai fJpooudxcov, auxov 6E
xov fSaaiAea AI>0EUIOV EfSGouov EXOC; eixovxa xf\q dpxfic;
dvaip£0fii>ai. xo xr|i>iKauxa AEOOV 6id xouc; EXI auvEcxxcdxac;
EP 'PWUTI 0opu[Souc; OAufJpiov, xbv xfjc; IlAaKi6iac; au^uyou,
EKriEuriEi xfj 'Pconn Kai dvayopEUEi xoOxou auxoKpdxopa.
(118)
PD: Hoc denique ipso in tempore inter Anthemium principem eiusque
generum Ricimerem patricium qui tunc Mediolani positus praeerat
Liguriae, magnus discordiarum fomes exortus est...deinde barbarica
perfidia foedus Ricimer inrumpens - erat Gothus prosapia - cum
manu mox valida urbem contendit atque apud Anicionis pontem
castra composuit. divisa itaque Roma est et quidam favebant
Anthemio, quidam vero Ricimeris perfidiam sequebantur. Inter haec
Olibrius a Leone Augusto missus ad urbem venit vivoque adhuc
Anthemio regiam adeptus est potestatem....victor Ricimer urbem
invadens quarto iam anno agentem iura imperii Anthemium gladio
trucidavit. praeter famis denique morbique penuriam, quibus eo
tempore Roma affligebatur, insuper etiam gravissime depraedata est
et excepto duabus regionibus, in quibus Ricimer cum suis manebat,
cetera omnia praedatorum sunt aviditate vastata. (15.3-5)
Cassiodorus, the FVpr and Paul correctly state that Olybrius was elevated before the
death of Anthemius, whereas the Paschale Campanum, Marcellinus and the Gallic
277
Chronicle all put Olybrius' elevation after Anthemius' death. In Cassiodorus, the very
negative portrayal of Ricimer, which is uncharacteristic of Cassiodorus' style, is only
paralleled in the tradition by that seen in Paul. Apart from Cassiodorus and Paul, only
Marcellinus and the Gallic Chronicle note that Ricimer was Anthemius' son-in-law. Both
Cassiodorus and Paul remark on the serious damage done to the city, Paul at some length.
The deaths of Ricimer and Olybrius are recorded next in Cassiodorus, but I have
divided them up in what follows because the other sources for the information are not the
same for both events.
Cass.: qui non diutius peracto scelere gloriatus post XL dies defunctus est.
FVpr: et defunctus est Ricimer XV kl. Septemb.
PC: moritur Recimer XIIII kal. Septemb.
PD: sed non diutius de perfidia laetatus est Ricimer. nam post mensem
tertium excruciatus languoribus et ipse interiit. (15.5)
Theoph: 6 6E 'PsKiusp UETOC xf)v AV6EUIOU acpayiiu xpsic; ufjvac; (IOVOUC;
Gia^riaaq voaw TEAEUTO., (118)
Cassiodorus' states that Ricimer died "post XL dies" / "after forty days" from the death of
Anthemius, a rare case of a fairly specific time-period in the Chronica. The FVpr says
that he died on 18 August, 39 days after the death of Anthemius on 11 July. Cassiodorus
might be counting inclusively here, but the Paschale Campanum says that he died on 19
August, 40 days after, so a tradition of a forty-day period has entered one of the strands of
the tradition, and Cassiodorus is drawing upon it.
Olybrius' death exhibits a fairly regular tradition, however.
Cass.: Olybrius autem VII imperii mense vitam peregit.
FVpr: et defunctus est imp. Olybrius Romae X kl. Novemb.
PC: et Olybrius montur IIII non Novemb.
Marc: loco eius Olybrius substitutus septimo mense imperii sui vita
defunctus est.
PD: Olibrius quoque dum septem menses imperium gessisset, morte
propria Romae defunctus est. (15.5)
Theoph: auvociiEAGovTOc; auxw OAu[Jpiou dppcoaxia aGouaTiKfi. (118)
Cassiodorus, Paul and Marcellinus all give Olybrius a seven month reign, while the FVpr
and the Paschale Campanum all give the date of his death (different in each case) rather
than the length of his reign, though neither had given the date of his elevation.
In the following year, 473, Glycerius was made emperor at Ravenna.
Cass.: Gundibado hortante Glycerius Ravennae sumpsit imperium. (1295)
FVpr: hoc consule levatus est imp. Glicerius Ravena III non. Martias.
PC: Licerius imperator levatus est V non. Mart.
MarA: Hoc consule levatus est Licerius imperator Ravenna.
Marc: Glycerius apud Ravennam plus praesumptione quam electione
Caesar factus est.
Theoph: TAuKEpioq 'IxaAiaq dvayopEUETai paaiXEuq, 6u>f)p OUK
&66KIUOC;. (119)
PD: post huius funus Licerius domesticus a Gundibaro patricio, totius
etiam voluntate exercitus, apud Ravennam imperator efficitur. (15.5)
Characteristically, the FVpr and the Paschale Campanum give a specific date, but
Cassiodorus and the others do not. Only Cassiodorus and Paul give the detail that
Gundobad was behind the elevation, but all except the Paschale Campanum say that it
occurred at Ravenna.
In the same year Cassiodorus places the final eastern event in his work which is
not the death or elevation of an emperor.
Cass.:
Marcel 1:
Vict. Tonn.
Haf:
Theoph:
PD:
Eodem anno Leo nepotem suum Leonem consortem facit imperio.
Leo senior imperator Leone iuniore a se iam Caesare constituto. [but
dated to the following year]
Leo Aug. Leonem nepotem suum, Zenonis uxoris, filiae suae filium
Caesarem facit et imperat ann. II.
E Leo iunior imperium apud Constantinopolim consulatusque
dignitatem sibi praesenti anno decernens cum Augusti nomine
vindicavit.
TOUTCO TU) £T£i Aecop 6 PctaiAsuc; Aeouxa, TOP Zfjpoopoc; UIOP
Kod ApedSuriq xf\q i.6iaQ QuyaTpoq, TOP SOLUTOU £YYOV>a,
oreii/ac; PaaiAea apriYopEuaEP. (119)
qui [Leo] deinceps sequenti tempore Leonem suum filium imperii
consortem effecit. (15.1)
Once again, the event, seemingly unimportant for western history, particularly since the
younger Leo was pushed aside by Zeno, must have been present in the tradition, and so
very likely in a single source that Cassiodorus used for his historical notes at this period
The same is true of the note for 474, the death of Leo and the accession of Zeno.
Cass.:
AV:
Haf:
Marc:
imperator Leo senior defunctus est, cui Zeno successit imperio, qui
regnavit annis XVII.
Zeno vero cum filio iam regnans anno uno, imperavit annos XIIII,
Isauriae nobilissimus (39)
sub consulatu Leonis iunioris Leo maior defunctus est XV k. Febr. et
levatus est imperator Zenon IIII k. Febr.
Leo senior...morbo periit, tam sui imperii annis quam huius Leonis
regni mensibus computatis annis decern et septem mensibus sex.
Zenonem Leo iunior imperator idemque filius principem regni
constituit.
CG511: Zeno Augustus ann XIII
PD: Leo igitur Augustus postquam Orientale decern et septem annis rexit
imperium, diem clausit extremum. mortuo Leone Zeno continuo
Augustalem nactus est dignitatem. (15.7)
Cassiodorus could easily have taken the material from a version of the consularia.
The deposition of Glycerius by Nepos is variously reported, with differences in
the tradition about where exactly Nepos was elevated.
Cass.: Eo etiam anno Romae Glycerio Nepus successit in regno.
FVpr: [text missing] de imperio Glicerius in Portu urbis Romae. eo anno
levatus est d n Iulius Nepos VIII kald. Iulias.
PC: deponitur Licerius. levatur Nepos.
AV: igitur imperante Zenone Augusto Constantinopoli superveniens
Nepos patricus at Portum urbis Romae deposuit de imperio
Glycerium et factus est episcopus et Nepos factus imperator Romae.
(7.36)
Haf: Glycerius de imperio deiectus a Nepote patricio in Portu urbis
Romae episcopus ordinatur. Nepos patricius in Portu urbis Romae
imperii iura suscepit.
MarA: Hoc consule depositus est Licerius de imperio, et levatus est Nepus
imperator.
Marcell: Glycerius Caesar Romae imperium tenens a Nepote Marcellini
quondam patricii sororis filio imperio expulsus in Portu urbis Romae
ex Caesare episcopus ordinatus est et obiit. [dated to 474]
Nepos, qui Glycerium regno pepulerat, Romae elevatus est
imperator. [dated to 475]
PD: Anno deinde sequenti inopinate Nepos patricius cum exercitu
veniens Licerium regia exuit potestate eumque apud Salonas
281
Dalmatiarum urbem episcopum ordinavit. (15.5)
Theoph: bv [Glycerius] e [if\v(X(; KpaxriCTavxa NEnoxiavoq AaAuaTnc;
EKP&AAEI Tf\q dpxfiq Kai POCQIAEUEI Kai auxoq xpovov oAiyov.
(119)
The FVpr, the PC, Marius and Paul give no place for Nepos' elevation. The Hafniensia
identifies the place as Portus, which was the place of Glycerius' deposition as well. But
Cassiodorus, the Anonymus Valesianus and Marcellinus all record Rome as the place
where Nepos was elevated, and the same authors also all state (and none of the others do)
that Glycerius was ordained a bishop.
Nepos' deposition by Orestes in 475 also receives many notes.
Cass: Eodem anno Orestes Nepote in Dalmatias fugato filio suo Augustulo
dedit imperium.
FVpr: his cons, introivit Ravennam patricius Orestes cum exercitu et
fugavit imp. Nepos ad Dalmatias V kl. Septemb.. eo anno
Augustulus imp levatus est Raven a patricio Oreste patre suo prid.
kl. Novembres.
PC: Fugavit Orestis Nepotem. Et levatur Augustulus.
AV: mox veniens [Nepos] Ravennam: quern persequens Orestes patricus
cum exercitu, metuens Nepos adventum Orestis, ascendens navem
fugam petit ad Salonam et ibi mansit per annos quinque: postea vero
a suis occiditur. Mox eo egresso factus imperator Augustulus.
Augustulus imperavit annos X. Augustulus, qui ante regnum
Romulus a parentibus vocabatur, a patre Oreste patricio factus est
imperator. (36-37)
HafPr: Nepote apud urbem residente Orestes patricus cum robore exercitus
contra eum mittitur. sed cum desperatae rei negotium resistendo
sumere non auderet, ad Dalmatias navigiis fugit. Cum Nepos fugiens
Italiam ac urbem rehquisset, Orestes primatum omnemque sibi
vindicans dignitatem Augustulum filium suum apud Ravennam
positus imperatorem facit, ipse vero omnem ruam externorum
praesidiorum gerit. Levatur Augustulus in imperio pridie K.
Novemb.379
HafPo: Nepos cum ab Oreste patricio cum exercitu persequeretur, fugiens ad
Dalmatias usque navigavit. Orestes vero patricius post fugam
Nepotis Augustulum filium suum Ravennae imperatorem facit II K.
Novemb.
HafPoM: Postquam dum sibi victoriae decore prosperoque eventu pollere
nequaquam causam caute usurpationis dicare sentiret praeveniente
vanitatis stimulo. sequenti anno post consulatum Leonis iunioris
Orestes patricius cum robore exercitus contra Nepotem Roma
mittitur. Qui cum desperatae rei negotium resistendo sumere non
auderet, ad Dalmatias navigans fugit V k. Septemb....Post cuius
fugam Orestes elatus quamquam sibi vota damnandae temeritatis
augere non auderet, Augustulum filium suum penes Ravennam
urbem imperatorem fecit pridie K. Novembris.
Marcell: Nepote Orestes protinus effugato Augustulum filium suum in
imperium conlocavit. (sa. 475)
PD: Ipso denique anno Augustulus apud Italiam adversus Nepotem cum
exercitu veniens effugato eo imperii regimen invasit. (15.7)
Theoph: Opsorou xivoc; £K[$aA6vxoc; auxov [Nepos], bv OIKEIOC; notic;
'Pco^uAoq, eniKAr|v AUYOUCFXOUAOC;, 6iot6£?;<xu£i>oc; KCCI 6uo
(JODOUC; dp^aq smauxouc; auxoKpaxoop xfjq ei> 'IxaAia
PaaiAeiaq Ka6iaxaxai. (119)
Cassiodorus' note here uncharacteristically begins not with "hoc consule," but with
379 The three separate narratives of the Hafniensia are the results of an author attempting to work the bare events of a version of the consularia into a longer narrative, similar to that of the Anonymus Valesianus. Though much of what is in the three different versions is repetetive and untrustworthy, I have included them all for the sake of completeness. See Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics.
"eodem anno." This suggests either that something has dropped out of the text of the
Chronica, that there was an event in his source that he omitted, or that he simply made a
mistake. If an event has dropped out, or if he omitted something, it is difficult even to
guess at what it was. Cassiodorus' note relates briefly that Orestes forced Nepos to flee to
Dalmatia and installed his son Augustulus on the throne. Marcellinus and Paul do not
have the detail about Dalmatia, and the PC includes neither Dalmatia, nor the
involvement of Orestes. Paul, curiously, suggests that Augustulus, and not his father
Orestes was responsible for Nepos' flight. Theophanes, who reports here the Augustulus
reigned for two years, is wrong, but is clearly still working from a list with a
chronological framework.
In 476, Odovacar killed Orestes and his brother Paul, and deposed the young
Augustulus.
Cass: ab Odovacre Orestes et frater eius Paulus extincti sunt, nomenque
regis Odovacar adsumpsit, cum tamen nee purpura nee regalibus
uteretur insignibus. (1303)
FVpr: levatus est Odoacar rex X kl. Septembris. eo anno occisus est
Orestes patricius Placentia V kl. Septembris. eo anno occisus est
Paulus frater eius Ravenna in pinita prid. non. Sept. (619-620)
PC: Odoacar levatur X k. Septb.
AV: Superveniens autem Odoachar cum gente Scirorum occidit Orestem
patricium in Placentia et fratrem eius Paulum ad Pinetam foris
Classem Ravennae. Ingrediens autem Ravennam deposuit
Augustulum de regno, cuius infantiae misertus concessit ei
sanguinem, et quia pulcher erat, etiam donans ei reditum sex milia
solidos, misit eum intra Campaniam cum parentibus suis libere
vivere. (37-38)
Odoacar vero, cuius supra fecimus mentionem, mox deposito
Augustulo de imperio, factus est rex mansitque in regno annos XIII.
(45)
HafPr: Intra Italiam Eruli, qui Romano iuri suberant, regem creant nomine
Odoacrem X k. Sept....qui Orestem patricium apud Placentiam
residentem oppressit atque devicit fratremque eius nomine Paulum
penes Ravennam positum interfecit.
HafPo: Odoachar ab exercitu suo rex levatur X k. Sept. Orestes patricius
Placentia et Paulus frater eius Ravenna occiduntur.
MarA: levatus est Odovacer rex.
Marc: Odoacar rex Gothorum Romam optinuit. Orestem Odoacar ilico
trucidavit. Augustulum filium Orestis Odoacar in Lucullano
Campaniae castello exilii poena damnavit.
PD: Odovacer itaque prosperos sibi cernens successus adcrescere statim
regiam arripuit dignitatem. Augustulus siquidem, qui imperii
praesumpserat potestatem. cernens universam Italiam Odovacris
viribus subdi inopinabili metu perterritus sponte miserabilis
purpuram abiciens, cum vix undecim mensibus rem publicam
obtinuisset, imperialem deposuit maiestatem. (15.10)
Theoph: '06o&Kpou Aoinov TOTGOU UEV TO YE^OC;, EI> 'IxaAiot 6e
xpacpeuTOQ, XEipGoaauEvou 6uvdu£i PappapiKfj TT\V dp/ ip- bq
xf\v xou pTyyoc; eauxcp nspiSsuEvoq npoariYopiav naaai>
dpxf)u Kocxd xov ndxpiov POUOV xolq 'Pwuaioic;
npoxeipicrduEPOQ sni i' xpoi^ouq xfjq dp^fic; £Kpdxr|rj£v. COKEI
6E EU 'PaP£vv>r| xfj noAsi xf\q 'IxaAiaq napd xiiv GdAaaaau
Eu6ai|iOva ouaav Kai KtxAr|t>. (119)
As usual, the FVpr, the PC and the Hafniensia have specific dates, but the detail about the
deaths of Orestes and his brother Paul are recorded by Cassiodorus, the FVpr, the AV, and
the Hafniensia. The FVpr, the AV, the Hafniensia, and Marius all clearly state that
285
Odovacar was elevated to the kingship. Cassiodorus, with slightly different wording, says
that Odovacar "took the name of king," wording which occurs in Theophanes as well,
though Theophanes says that Odovacar ruled in Italy for ten years, whereas Cassiodorus'
Chronica shows that he ruled for thirteen as does the AV. The additional detail in
Cassiodorus that Odovacar did not wear the purple nor the royal insignia is likely a note
added by Cassiodorus himself, presumably to distinguish Odovacar from Theoderic.380
Odovacar's thirteen years as king in Italy were relatively peaceful, and none of the
sources has much to say. Still, Cassiodorus appears still to be relying on the consularia
during this period. His next note relates Odovacar's attack against Ovida in Dalmatia,
which others note also. Cassiodorus or his source misdates this event to 481, whereas the
FVpr and the Hafniensia both date it to 482.
Cass.: Odovacar in Dalmatiis Odivam vincit et perimit.
FVpr: occisus est [one line is missing here] VII idus Octobris.
HafPr: Odoachar rex in Dalmatiis proficiscitur, cui cum obsistere cum
exercitu Ovida conaretur, ab Odoachre oppressus interiit V id.
Decemb. Odoachar devicto Ovida atque interfecto regnum late
proeliis et ferro extendit.
HafPo: Odoachar rex in Dalmatiis pugnans Ovidam cepit atque occidit.
Despite Cassiodorus' incorrect date, the similarity between his note and that of the
Hafniensia is noteworthy.
Cassiodorus' next note on Odovacar's defeat of the Rugii is similarly brief and
likewise mimicked in the other representatives of the consularia tradition.
380 Whether the "insignia regalia" to which Cassidorus refers here are the same as the "ornamenta palatii" which the emperor Anastasius sent back to Theoderic (AV64), confirming him in his seat in Italy, is unclear.
Cass.:
FVpr:
HafPr:
HafPo:
AV:
Odovacar Foeba rege Rugorum victo captoque potitus est.
hoc cons, pugna facta est inter Odoacrem regem et Fevvanum regem
Rugorum et vicit Odoacar et adduxit captivum Fevvanum regem sub
die XVII kal. Decemb.
Fevva rex Rugorum adversum regem Erulorum Odoachrem bellum
movet. collectis copiis ab utroque exercitu supra Danubium amnem
pugna initur. multa utriusque exercitus cadaverum stages caede
coacervata: sed cum iam ab utroque rege anceps victoria
expectaretur, Fevva devictus tandem et vivus captus ac Odoachri
oblatus, quern vitae reservatum Odoachar in Italiam secum vinctum
pertrahit. pugnatum est supra Danubium cum Fevva et Rugis XV k.
Ian.
His consulibus Odoachar rex Herulorum Fevvanem regem Rugorum
proelio devictum supra Danuvium cepit atque secum intra Italiam
vinctum pertrahit.
Igitur Odoacar rex gessit bellum adversus Rugos, quos in secundo
vicit, et funditus delevit. (48)
From the arrival of Theoderic in Italy in 489 to the death of Odovacar in 493, we
come into muddy territory. In the major narratives we have for these years, Cassiodorus,
the FVpr, the Hafniensia, the AVand Paul the Deacon, the events are in the correct order,
but the date of Theoderic's entry into Italy differs, and each narrative offers pieces of
information which the others do not.381 The interconnections of the documents at this
point are fairly clear, but it is the selection of detail rather than clear verbal connections
which prove their interdependence.
Still, connections between the Chronica and the second part of the Anonymus
381 The FVpr date Theoderic's arrival to 490, as do the Hafniensia. A small note in the Fasti Parisini dates the event to 491.
Valesianus have been suggested by several scholars and must be addressed. The AV,
whose author is unknown, was written in Italy in the middle of the sixth century, though
the exact date is still controversial.382 It provides the chief Latin narrative of Theoderic's
reign in Italy. The work appears to present two distinct pictures of Theoderic: the first,
from section 36 up to about section 73, which corresponds roughly with the period from
the beginning of Theoderic's career to 519, is panegyrical, while the second part details
the worsening relationship between Theoderic and his subjects. The earlier portion
appears to be more firmly grounded in chronology, and includes two consular dates.
Cessi, in his 1912 edition, argued that the difference in presentation was due to the
author's clumsy stitching together of two sources, one positive, one negative, and he has
been followed by many.383 Barnish has recently argued well for single authorship, but
allows for the possibility that the author made use of several sources, the earlier of which
clearly had a firmer chronological basis.384
Many have noted the similarities between Cassiodorus' Chronica and the AV, and
opinions have varied as to the reasons. Cessi suggested that the source for the early
sections on Theoderic was Cassiodorus' Gothic History, and he has been followed
recently by Massimiliano Vitiello, who expanded on Cessi's suggestion by finding verbal
similarities between the language of the AVand the Variae.38' However, as we will see,
the similarities between the two documents seem best to attribute to the use of similar
documents in the consularia tradition.
382 See Konig 1997, 56-63 and Barnish 1983 577-578 for a brief overview. 383 Cessi 1912 pp. cxix-cxxvi and clxv-clxviii, followed by Ensslin 1947, p. 279 and 311 and Vassiliev
1950, p 214. 384 Barnish 1983, especially page 594. 385 Cessi 1913, Vitiello 2000.
Cassiodorus has only four entries on Theoderic's campaign in Italy. I will treat
them, along with the other authors and documents which partake of the same tradition, in
order.
Cass.: felicissimus atque fortissimus dn rex Theodericus intravit Italiam.
Cui Odovacar ad Isontium pugnam parans victus cum tota gente
fugatus est. Eodem anno repetito conflictu Veronae vincitur
Odovacar.
FVpr: ingressus est rex Theodericus in fossato pontis Sontis V kl
Septembris et fugit Odoacar rex de fossato et abiit in Beronam. [but
dated to the following year]
AV: Cui [Theoderico] occurrit venienti Odoacar ad fluvium Sontium, et
ibi pugnans cum eodem, victus fugit et abiit in Veronam et fixit
fossatum in campo minore Veronense V kalendas Octobres. Ibique
persecutus est eum Theodericus, et pugna facta, ceciderunt populi ab
utraque parte; tamen superatus Odoacar fugit Ravennam pridie
kalendas Octobres. (50)
Haf: Hoc consule Theudoricus rex Gothorum ingressus est fossatum
ponte Sontis adversum Odoachar regem. Quern cum ingenti copia
hostium munitum et insolentis animi cerneret non posse eum vi
superare, timore perculsus aufugit ac se Veronensi oppido cum
exercitu recepit. quern cum rex Theudoricus fugisse se coram
comperit...ad Veronam usque persecutus est. quern cum Odoachar
adventasse ad sui obsidionem cerneret, taedio victus collectis
bellatorum copiis se in campo Veronensi minore obvium obiecit. ubi
cum magnae strages ab utroque exercitu fierent, dum unum
desperatae rei necessitas cogeret, alterum, ne coeptae victoriae
gloriam fuga macularet, diu utrisque pugnantibus tandem victus
Odoachar fugit et Ravennam cum exercitu fugiens pervenit. [but
dated to the following coss.]
289
MarA.: ingressus est Theudoricus rex Gothorum in Italia ponte Isonti.
All four give the details of the initial battle at the Isonzo river in 489. Cassiodorus,
the FVpr, the AV, and the Hafniensia all have the additional detail of Odovacar's flight to
Verona and the subsequent battle there in the same year.
The following year saw a third battle at the river Addua, which is not reported by
the FVpr or Marius.
Cass.: ad Adduam fluvium Odovacrem dn Theoderichus rex tertio
certamine superavit. Qui Ravennam fugiens obsidetur inclusus.
AV: Tunc venerunt Wisigothae in adiutorium Theoderici, et facta est
pugna super fluvium Adduam, et ceciderunt populi ab utraque parte
et occisus est Pierius comes domesticorum III idus Augustas. (53)
Haf: Odoachar rex ab Ravenna Mediolanium rediit atque contractis copiis
cum Theudorico bellum init super fluvio Adda: sed ut rei desperatae
magis adimi quam augeri vires solent, Odoachar terga vertens
interfecto Pierio comite, qui bellicis rebus praeerat, Ravennam
iterum aufugit. [but dated to the following year]
Again, we see the different narratives offering different details. All record the name of the
river, but only Cassiodorus and the Hafniensia say that Odovacar retreated to Ravenna.
Both the AVand the Hafniensia say that the comes Pierius was killed in the battle,
whereas Cassiodorus does not.
Cassiodorus' next note is on a night-time sortie by Odovacar and his troops while
they were under siege at Ravenna by Theoderic.
Cass.: Odovacar cum Erulis egressus Ravennam nocturnis horis ad pontem
Candidiani a dn nostra rege Theodenco memorabih certamine
superatur.
FVpr: eo anno ingressus est Odoacar rex in fossatum Erulis in pinita et
occisus est Libila mag. mil. et ceciderunt populi ab utrque parte et
clausit se Ravenn Odoacar rex VI idus Iul...
AV: exiit Odoacar rex de Ravenna nocte, cum Herulis ingressus in
Pinetam in fossatum patrici Theoderici, et ceciderunt ab utraque
parte exercitus, et fugiens Levila, magister militum Odoacris,
occisus est in fluvio Bedente; et victus Odoacar fugit Ravennam id.
Iul. (54)
Haf: fossato ac munitione late patente in Pineta exercitum vallavit. quern
cum securum intra fossatum sedere Odoachar conspiceret, clam
noctu cum Erulis intra fossatum in Pineta erupit, ubi, cum diu
pugnatum esset et utriusque exercitus magnae copiae cecidissent,
interfecto Libilane magistro militiae intra Ravennam sese rex
Odoachar reclusit.
Agnell: cum...iuxta Strovilia Peucodis non longe ab urbe Ravenna applicitus
Theodoricus fuisset cum hostibus sui in campo qui vocatur Candiani,
postquam duabus vicibus Odovacer superavit, qui illo tempore
regnum Ravennae obtinebat, tunc exiit Odovacer ad praedictum
campum cum exercitu suo et superatus est tertio et ante faciem
Theodorici terga dedit et infra civitatem clausit.
All the narratives save that of Agnellus relate that Odovacar's sortie took place at night
and that Odovacar was accompanied by his Herulian troops. The narratives of the AVand
the FVpr are closely related at this point. Cassiodorus and Agnellus give a similar detail,
when Cassiodorus records the place "ad pontem Candidiani," and Agnellus says that
Theoderic was attacked "in campo qui vocatur Candiani." The other narratives, which
291
tend to speak of the attack on Theoderic's camp in the Pineta, lack this precision.
After two brief notes (which I will address later) Cassiodorus records the death of
Odovacar in 493, an event which marked the end of the Italian campaign.
Cass.: dn rex Theodericus Ravennam ingressus Odovacrem molientem sibi
insidias interemit.
FVpr: ingressus est Ravenam rex Theodoricus III non Mar. et occisus est
Odoacar rex a rege Theodorico in palatio cum commilitibus suis.
PC: Ravennae Theodoricus ingressus.
AV: Sic ingressus est Theodericus et post aliquot dies, dum ei Odoacer
insidiaretur, detectus ante ab eo praeventus in palatio, manu sua
Theodericus eum in Lauretum pervenientem gladio interemit. Cuius
exercitus in eadem die iussu Theoderici omnes interfecti sunt, quivis
ubi potuit reperiri, cum omni stirpe sua. (55-56)
Haf: Ac deinde ingressus est Ravennam. pacis specie Odoachrem
interfecit cum collegas omnes, qui regni praesidium amministrabant.
Agnell: et subiit Ravennam III non. Martias. post paucos dies occidit
Odovacrem rex in palatio in Lauro cum comitibus suis.
MarA: occisus est Odovacer rex a rege Theuderico in Laureto. [dated to the
previous year, but Marius lacks the consuls of 493]
The FVpr, the AV, Agnellus and Marius all give the place where Odovacar was killed: the
palace ad Lauretum in Ravenna. The FVpr, the AV, the Hafniensia, and Agnellus all give
the detail that Odovacar was killed with his soldiers. Only Cassiodorus and the AV
suggest that Odovacar was plotting against Theoderic, and the Hafniensia seems to
suggest that the treachery was on Theoderic's side ("specie pacis" / "under the guise of
peace").
In the passages I have covered which deal with Theoderic's campaigns in Italy, it
will be noticed that the narratives of Cassiodorus and the A Voften agree. They follow the
same time-line, and the ,4Fprovides almost all the information that Cassiodorus does.
The AVs narrative of Theoderic's invasion of Italy is almost certainly from the consularia.
The only precise dates giving month and day in the entire work date from the years
between 489 and 491, and there are quite a few: we are given the precise date for the
battle at Verona (50), for Odovacar's flight to Ravenna (50), the date of Tufa's
appointment to Odovacar's circle of optimates (51), the notation "eo anno" / "in that
year" - which is very common in consularia - for Tufa's expedition against Odovacar at
Ravenna (51), a consular date for the year 490, "Fausto et Longino" (53); the date of the
battle near the Addua river (53), the consular date for 491, "Olybrio vc cons," the date of
Odovacar's nocturnal attack on Theoderic's camp (54). The AV, however, seems to lose
track of the chronology after 491, since the next recorded event, the death of Odovacar
two years later, is not dated at all.
The consular dates in the A V along with the events in each year correspond with
Cassidorus' dates. Both documents clearly date the entry of Theoderic into Italy to 489.
Almost all the events recorded by Cassidorus for these years are recorded in the AV,
which is much longer and more detailed, and in most cases Cassiodorus' details are
included in the A Fas well. A battle at the Isonzo river is recorded by both, along with
Odovacar's flight (1319-1320 and 50), though the FVpr and the Hafniensia say only that
Odovacar fled on Theoderic's arrival, not that there was a battle. Both record Theoderic's
march to Verona and the battle there (1321 and 50). Both record the third battle at the
293
river Addua (1323 and 53).386 Both record Theoderic's siege of Ravenna which began in
490 (1324 and 53). Both record Odovacar's nocturnal sortie from Ravenna with his
Herulian troops and the battle which he lost (1326 and 54).
But the only verbal similarities between the two works occur between the death of
Odovacar and 502 - not a particularly long time-period. Despite the fact that the date of
Odovacar's death is not recorded in the AV, as it is in Cassiodorus, the details given by
both authors and the words used are very similar. Cassiodorus writes, "Theodericus
Ravennam ingressus Odovacrem molientem sibi insidias interemit" / "Theoderic
entered Ravenna and killed Odovacar, who was plotting against him" (1331). The AV
have, "ingressus est Theodericus et post aliquot dies, dum ei Odoacar
insidiaretur...manu sua Theodericus eum in Lauretum pervenientem gladio interemit" /
"Theoderic went in, and after a few days, since Odovacar was plotting against
him...Theoderic killed him with a sword with his own hand as he came into the
Lauretum" (55). Both Jordanes and Procopius record the possibility that Theoderic was
acting in pre-emptively in self-defense, but none of the Italian sources do.387
All this points to some sort of common source behind the narrative of the AVand
the notes of Cassiodorus. Though each records details that the other does not, there are no
contradictions of event or date to rule out a common source. The fact that the AV records
the correct consuls for the year 490, Faustus and Longinus, whereas Cassiodorus omits
the easterner Longinus, is noteworthy, since, as we have seen, Cassiodorus was on the
whole very careful with his consular list at the end of the fifth century. But it seems likely
386 As does the Cow. Hqf. s.a. 491. 387 Jordanes Rom. 349; Procopius BG 1.1.25.
that the version of the consularia which the A Fused had a corrected version of the
consuls for the year.
Finally, Cassiodorus includes two notes between the battle at the pons Candidiani
and the death of Odovacar. The first is noteworthy since it has no parallel in any of our
sources: "Tunc etiam Vandali pace suppliciter postulata a Siciliae solita depredatione
cessarunt" / "The also the Vandals humbly asked for peace and ceased their customary
attacks on Sicily" (1327). This note is dated to 491 is one of the very few historical
details which only Cassiodorus records and, though it does not add a great deal to our
knowledge of the period, may have been included by the author to demonstrate the effect
Theoderic's success in Italy had on the neighbouring kingdom. There is no reason to think
that this detail was not in the version of the consularia which Cassiodorus used, however.
The second note, dated to the same year, simply marks the death of Zeno and the
accession of Anastasius at Constantinople, which I have discussed above. The note, of
course, has parallels in the consularia tradition:
Cass.: eodem anno Zeno occubuit, cui Anastasius in orientali successit
imperio.
PC: Zeno defunctus est, levatus Anastasius.
AV: Et moritur Constantinopolim Zeno imperator, et factus est imperator
Anastasius. (57)
Marcell: Zenon Augustus vita decessit tarn sui imperii annis quam Basilisci
tyrannidis mensibus conputatis anno XVII mense sexto. Anastasius
ex silentario imperator creatus est.
While it is not easy to nail down clear connections between the documents which
make up the consularia tradition, in the case of Cassiodorus it is not impossible. In the
295
comparisons above, I have alluded to several similarities between Cassiodorus' work and
the Historia Romana of Paul the Deacon. A careful comparison of both documents bears
some fruit.
Cassiodorus and Paul the Deacon
There are strong correspondences between book fifteen of Paul the Deacon's
Historia Romana, written in the eighth century, and the matching years in Cassiodorus'
Chronica, which suggest that the two used a very similar document, though, as will be
seen, probably not the same version.
Paul the Deacon (c. 720- c. 800) was a Benedictine monk who lived at Monte
Cassino from sometime before 782 and died before 800. There he composed, among
other works, his Historia Gentis Langobardorum, our chief source for the history of the
Lombard kingdom in Italy, but also his Historia Romana, a continuation of Eutropius'
Breviarum from 364 to 553, and one of the most popular histories of Rome in the Middle
Ages.388 One of Paul's main sources for the period between 379 and 455 was Prosper, and
he quotes him extensively, but after 455 he turned to a different source, which may well
have been a continuation of the copy of Prosper which he had.389
Paul does not date his years by consuls, but the frequency with which he notes the
388 SeeBrunholzl 1975-1992,257-258. 389 Paul used and rewrote Jordanes and Prosper extensively for the campaigns of Attila, but also had other
sources, sometimes noted by Droysen in his edition of Paul. For instance, Paul says that Attila besieged Aquileia over three years "continuo triennio," which is virtually impossible since the battle of the Catalaunian fields was in 451 and Attila's death in 453. But it at least suggests that Paul had a source which provided him with chronological information. In his account of Geiseric's sack of Rome, Paul says that he was supported "praesidio Maurorum" "by a guard of Moors," information which is not in Prosper, though it is in the FVpr. This suggests that Paul had a version of the consularia, in addition to Prosper, which dealt with the events of 455.
296
change of years indicates clearly that he must have been using a document dated by years
- and therefore certainly by consular years. He does not give specific dates, as we might
expect from someone using one of the consularia, but he frequently notes the number of
months which separate events within a year.
The consularia which he used seem to have run out between 476 and 489, since he
gives very little attention to the years of Odovacar's reign (though he knows the length of
his reign), and when he turns to Theoderic's march on Italy his information is very
detailed indeed, and, as we will see below, much of it comes from a rewriting of Jordanes'
Getica and pieces of Ennodius' Vita Epiphanii, though he also had a narrative source
which he drew on as well. It is not impossible that his version of Prosper had a
continuation, dated by consuls, which went from 446 to 476 and then ended. But it had
certainly ended by 489, the date of the arrival of Theoderic into Italy.
There are a handful of correspondences between Cassiodorus and Paul in book
fifteen that prove their use of a similar source, particularly over the years between 455
and 476. The first is an error common to both authors. I noted above that both
Cassiodorus and Paul say that Maximus, after the murder of Valentinian, spent less than
two months on the throne before he was killed. Cassiodorus says, "post quern
[Valentinian] Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos menses a militibus extinctus in
Tiberim proicitur" / "after whom Maximus siezed the throne and was killed by his
soldiers and thrown into the Tiber within two months" (1262). Paul writes, "Mortuo
Valentiniano regni iura Maximus apud urbem invadens nee dum duobus expletis
mensibus a Romanis peremptus est" / "After Valentinian's death, Maximus siezed power
at Rome, but was killed by the Romans before two months were out" (14.16). The other
sources all give the correct time of something over seventy days.
In 15.1, Paul notes Leo's accession and adds that he "deinceps sequenti tempore
Leonem suum filium imperii consortem effecit" / "afterwards, at a later time, made his
son Leo his colleague in power." Cassiodorus has almost exactly the same note, though
he places it in Leo's fifth consulship, the sixteenth year of his reign: "eodem anno Leo
nepotem suum Leonem consortem facit imperio" / "in the same year Leo made his
grandson a colleague in power." Paul is incorrect in identifying the younger Leo as the
son of the elder, but the verbal similarity is clear.390
In 15.2 Paul notes that Anthemius took the throne "consensu militiae" "with the
agreement of the army." Cassiodorus says that Anthemius "tertio ab urbe miliario in loco
Brontotas suscepit imperium" / "took up power at the third milestone from the city in the
place Brontotas" (1283). We do not know where or what Brontodas was, but it seems
reasonable to assume it was an imperial villa not far from the city, and that Anthemius
was proclaimed emperor by the army there. Paul and Cassiodorus are the only two to note
anything different what the other witnesses to the tradition of the Italian consularia note,
typically that Anthemius was sent by Leo and that he was elevated at Rome.391
Two successive notes in successive years in Cassiodorus are particularly worth
mentioning (similarities in wording are italicized): "Arabundus imperium temptans iussu
Anthemii exilio deportatur" / "Arabundus tried to usurp imperial power and was exiled on
390 Victor of Tunnuna provides a possible reason for Paul's mistake when he writes, "Leo Aug. nepotem suum, Zenonis uxoris, filiae suae filium Caesarem facit" "Leo made his grandson, the son of his daughter, the wife of Zeno, Caesar." The slightly awkward wording might lead a sloppy reader or copyist to record only "filium" and pass over "nepotem."
391 See above, p. 273.
the orders of Anthemius" (1287), and "Romanus patricius affectans imperium capitaliter
punitus est" / "the patrician Romanus aspired to imperial power and was executed"
(1289). These are matched by two successive notes in Paul: "Sequenti anno Servandus
Galliarum praefectus imperium temptans invadere iussu Anthemii principis in exilium
trusus est. Rursus annali emenso spatio Romanus patricius imperatoriam fraudulenter
satagens arripere dignitatem praecipiente Anthemio capite caesus est" / "In the following
year Servandus, the prefect of the Gauls, tried to usurp imperial power and was exiled on
the orders of Anthemius. And again, a year later, the patrician Romanus worked
deceitfully to take the position of the emperor and was executed on the command of
Anthemius" (15.2). The first man accused of treason, misnamed Arabundus by
Cassiodorus and Servandus by Paul, is Arvandus, the prefect of Gaul, who was tried
under Anthemius and exiled in 469.392 There are sufficient similarities in wording
(italicized above) between the two documents to indicate their common source. The
second man, the patrician Romanus, is almost unknown, mentioned only in these two
passages and a fragment in John of Antioch (207), which says he was punished (though
we are not told how) for making Anthemius sick through magic. The fact that this note
follows immediately on the note about Arvandus, along with a clear date placing the two
events in successive years, points to a common source.393
Again in paragraph 15.2, Paul notes the execution of Aspar and his sons,
highlighting the suggestion that Aspar was "insidias moliens" / "plotting" against the
emperor Leo. This note does not show up in the other Italian sources, but does in
392 Atrial memorably related by Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. 1.7. 393 Holder-Egger 1876 suggested that Paul had been using a copy of Cassiodorus' Chronica and another
consularia which had a great deal of information on the city of Rome (302), but it is simpler to posit a similar source for both Paul and Cassiodorus.
299
Cassiodorus, who notes the death of Aspar, an "affectator tyrannidis," a "usurper"
(1291).394
In 15.3 we see in Paul the very negative portrayal of Ricimer which we do not see
in the other consularia, but which, as I noted above, we do see in Cassiodorus. Of the
brief civil war between Ricimer and Anthemius at Rome, Paul says, "deinde barbarica
perfidia foedus Ricimer inrumpens - erat Gothus prosapia - cum manu mox valida urbem
contendit atque apud Anicionis pontem castra composuit. divisa itaque Roma est et
quidam favebant Anthemio, quidam vero Ricimeris perfidiam sequebantur" / "then,
through his barbarian perfidy - he was a Goth by race - Ricimer, breaking his
agreements, hastened to the city with an armed band and pitched camp at the pons
Anicionis.395 Therefore Rome was divided and some sided with Anthemius, but others
followed the perfidy of Ricimer." Cassiodorus, as we noted, had already recorded
Ricimer's involvement in the death of Severus, not suggested by anyone else, and at this
point in his work he disparages Ricimer as well, saying that Anthemius was killed "contra
reverentiam principis et ius adfinitatis cum gravi clade civitatis" / "contrary to the
reverence due to an emperor and the obligations of their relationship by marriage which
resulted in serious damage to the city" (1293). Paul says nothing about Ricimer's
marriage to Anthemius' daughter, but, like Cassiodorus, notes the damage to the people of
Rome because of the conflict (15.5).
After Anthemius' death, Paul says of Ricimer that "non diutius de perfidia laetatus
est Ricimer. nam post mensem tertium excruciatus languoribus et ipse interiit" / "Ricimer
394 See above, p. 274. 395 The bridge is otherwise unknown. See MacGeorge 2003, 254.
did not rejoice long because of his perfidy, since after the third month, tormented by
weakness, he, too, died" (15.5), a remark very similar to Cassiodorus' comment: "non
diutius peracto scelere gloriatus post XL dies defunctus est" "he did not glory for long
after the commission of his crime, but died forty days later." The time between the
Anthemius' death and Ricimer's given by the two authors is different, but the verbal
similarities between them are unmistakeable.396
Paul relates the accession of Glycerius (whom he names Licerius), which he
attributes to Gundobad (whom he names Gundibarus): "post huius funus Licerius
domesticus a Gundibaro patricio, totius etiam voluntate exercitus, apud Ravennam
imperator efficitur" "After his [Olybrius'] death, Licerius, his bodyguard, was made
emperor at Ravenna by the patrician Gundibarus, also with the agreement of the whole
army" (15.5). Cassiodorus is the only other Latin author to attribute Glycerius' accession
to Gundobad, though he only says that Glycerius took power "Gundibado hortante" "at
Gundobad's urging" (1295).397
At this point the similarities between Cassiodorus and Paul begin to break down.
Whereas from the beginning of book fifteen parallels appear in the same order as they
appear in Cassiodorus,398 the events both authors list for the year 474, the death of Leo
and the coup of Nepos, are reversed in Paul, with Nepos' coup coming before Leo's death.
Furthermore, he clearly places the accession of Augustulus in the same year as the death
396 The FVpr and the Paschale Campanum both give precise dates for the two deaths: Anthemius was killed on 11 July 472, and Ricimer died either on 18 or 19 August, the former date given by FVpr, the latter by the Paschale Campanum. Cassiodorus thus agrees perfectly with the Paschale Campanum, and Paul is wrong, but a mistaken reading of "XC dies" for "XL dies" is easy to imagine.
397 But see also John of Antioch fr. 209,2 = Priscus Exc. de Ins. 93 398 Apart from the note on Leo making his grandson Caesar, which Paul clearly says happened later. See
above, p. 297.
of Leo: "ipso denique anno Augustulus apud Italiam adversus Nepotem cum exercitu
veniens effugato eo imperii regimen invasit" / "then, in that year, Augustulus came with
his army against Nepos in Italy and when he had put him to flight, he siezed control of
the imperial power" (15.7). Cassiodorus, on the other hand, is very clear (and correct)
that the driving force behind Nepos' deposition was Augustulus' father, Orestes (1301).
The dates for and the order of events provided by Paul, though not dated by
consuls, match (apart from one) with those in Cassiodorus. Paul places the defeat of
Beorgor in the third year of Leo's reign (15.1), as does Cassiodorus (1278). Both give
Severus a reign of four years (15.1 and 1280). Both say that Olybrius' reigned for seven
months (15.5 and 1293).3" The single discrepancy in chronology between the two authors
in book fifteen of the Historia Romana is the date of Arvandus' trial and exile, which Paul
puts "sequenti anno'V'in the following year" after the death of Severus and the
acclamation of Anthemius. Cassiodorus, correctly, has a year in between the two
After the accession of Glycerius in 472 there are no clear links between the
sources of Cassiodorus and Paul, and several clear indications that they were not using
the same material. Paul says that Augustulus came into Italy and put Nepos to flight in
399 Marcellinus (s.a. 472) gives seven months, too. Jordanes {Get. 239) gives eight months, while FVpr and the Paschale Campanum both give the date of his death (different in each case), but not the date of his accession. There is also some confusion in the sources over the date of Olybrius' accession. Cassiodorus, Paul and the FVpr all clearly indicate that Olybrius' elevation preceded Anthemius' murder; Marcellinus, Jordanes and the Paschale Campanum all put Olybrius' elevation incorrectly after Anthemius' death.
400 Paul, unlike so many of the other witnesses to the consularia tradition, does not have the death of Marcellinus in this year. It is possible that the year had fallen out of his source, or, not having any context for Marcellinus, left him out and omitted the year by mistake. In fact, the number of years Paul counts by AUC dating from the accession of Leo, 1211, to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus, 1229 (assuming the manuscript of 1209 is a mistake, as it must be: Droysen's ms H corrects 1209 to 1229 in a second hand, p. 211) is one year short of what it should be, 18 instead of 19 years, it is not impossible that this year had fallen out of his source.
the year of Leo's death, but, as I noted above, Cassiodorus has the correct version that
Orestes was the real actor. Paul is, however, still using a consular list since he clearly
dates his events year by year at this point.
But after the deposition of Augustulus, Paul backtracks and gives the history of
Odovacar's rise to power, which he takes from Epiphanius' Vita Severini, and skillfully
weaves Odovacar's conquest of Italy into the narrative where he knows it must go. But he
still seems to have some precise dates to hand, though it is no longer clear that they came
from consularia: Paul says that Augustulus reigned "vix undecim mensibus" / "scarcely
eleven months," and in the same paragraph says that Odovacar ruled for fourteen years
"nullo inquietante" "with no one to bother him." Furthermore, Paul has put here a kind of
supputatio, with dates according to three different systems: ab urbe condita, from the
accession of Julius Caesar, and ab incarnatione. Although Jordanes, Paul's main source,
gives a similar supputatio at the same place in his narrative, which he took from
Marcellinus, the supputatio in Paul is not from any known source. The presence of a
supputatio in this place at least suggests that he had a carefully dated document to hand.
Certainly after this point there are no clear connections with Cassiodorus and no more
indications that Paul was using consularia for his dates or his historical events.401
401 In fact, Paul's sources for his narrative from 476 to 493 can be almost completely teased out and identified. He used Epiphanius' Vita Severini for Odovacar's invasion, then uses Jordanes almost exclusively to detail the rise of the Ostrogoths and Theoderic. Theoderic's march into Italy gives few details not in Jordanes which must be from somewhere else: the defeat of Trapstila, king of the Gepids, and Busan, the king of the Bulgars (15.15), as well as the detail that he had left for Italy from Misia. Large sections of Paul's narrative of Theoderic's invasion of Italy are not from a known source, and he has several details which no one else has, including Theoderic's occupation of Verona, Odovacar's journey to Rome and the refusal of its inhabitants to let him in, Odovacar's fortification of Ravenna against Theoderic, and Theoderic's stop in Milan, where a great multitude of soldiers and people came to him (15.16). Paul takes a great deal of information also from Ennodius' Vita Epiphanii, and possible also from his panegyric of Theoderic, though this is harder to ascertain. The Vita Epiphanii, the panegyric and Eugippius' Vita Severini are all noted by Droysen in his edition of Paul as sources. The single possible point of connection between Paul and Cassiodorus is Paul's record of
303
Somewhere between the victory of Odovacar in 476 and the accession of
Anastasius in 491, Paul's consularia source either ended or, perhaps more likely, is
different from Cassiodorus'. Paul says that Odovacar reigned for fourteen years (15.10),
which should mean 476 to 489 inclusive.402 Cassiodorus, however, whose dating is
correct, has only thirteen years between Odovacar's coup and Theoderic's entry into Italy
in 489.403 Paul, however, as I noted above, had placed Nepos' accession in the same year
as the death of Leo, in 474 instead of 475. His count to 489, then, would be fourteen
years instead of the correct thirteen.
Holder-Egger believed that Paul had used Cassiodorus' Chronica and that he, like
Cassiodorus, had supplemented his source with information about Rome.404 But Paul has
information that Cassiodorus does not, and the suggestion that they both used something
very similar is a tidier solution to explain their similarities.
To sum up, then, a comparison of Cassiodorus' material with that of Paul the
Deacon suggests that Cassiodorus made use of an extension of an Italian consularia
which ran at least from 452 (the destruction of Aquileia) through to the death of
Odovacar. The document contained eastern material, as the note on Aspar shows. Paul
made use of a close relative of the document which Cassiodorus used. However, Paul's
the donation of 120,000 modii of wheat every year to the people of Rome (15.18), which Cassiodorus (1339) and the AV(67) report as well. Paul's note uses very similar language to the AV, but the details of how much the annona was and who received it are different in each author, so a common source seems unlikely here.
402 Paul or his source could, of course, have been counting inclusively, but there is considerable disagreement among our sources about the date of Theoderic's arrival in Italy. See above, pp. 288ff..
403 Both Jordanes and the Anonymus Valesianus (which may stand in some relation to Paul at this point) say that Odovacar reigned for thirteen years. Paul goes against his major sources for a reason here, and it may be that he counted the years between the fall of Augustulus and the entry of Theoderic into Italy incorrectly as fourteen years because he felt he had a more reliable source, that is, a consular list. He may simply have found the few events of Odovacar's reign recorded there not worthy of note.
404 Holder-Egger 1876, p. 301.
304
lack of detail on the reign of Odovacar and his differences in chronology with
Cassiodorus' material from that point on suggests either that the closely related source
which Paul used ran out around 476, with the deposition of Augustulus, or he departed
from that source and turned elsewhere for better information about Theoderic's arrival in
Italy and his subsequent reign.
The agreement on the length of Maximus' reign between Cassiodorus and Paul, as
opposed to Prosper's note, which I discussed above, points to the possibility that
Cassiodorus' version of the consularia began before Prosper's ended. It is, then, as I
suggested at the end of the section on Prosper, certainly one of the sources, if not the only
source, for the extra material in Cassiodorus' work which does not come from Prosper
between 379 and 455.
The lengthy comparison above of almost all the passages from Cassiodorus
between 452 and 493 demonstrates the interwoven nature of the documents which depend
on the Consularia Italica. It must be underscored again that the Consularia Italica is not a
single document, but a large tree of similar documents, all stemming from a single source
from the fourth century. Not a literary document and not attributable to any specific
author, as it spread it was added to and brought up to date in a great variety of ways by
many different people. Connections between specific documents are difficult to nail
down, but the overall picture is of a single, if not coherent tradition. We could imagine a
bookseller in 484 who already has a copy of the consularia which he has himself brought
up to date. He acquires, over the next three years, four other versions with different end-
dates, and brings them all up to date using the single version he has. He then sells all
305
three documents, and they make their way to different households or booksellers, and are
then copied, corrected, and extended in turn by different hands. The consularia are not
histories, but rather documents which give the raw material for history and, perhaps more
importantly for individuals, keep track of the passage of time.
The Years between 493 and 500
After the death of Odovacar, there follows a period of six years without historical
events until 500 CE. Between 500 and 519 there are eight historical notes in the Chronica,
opposite the years 500, 502, 504, 508, 514, 515, 518 and 519. Since these are all years
which cover events in Cassiodorus' own lifetime, and presumably his memory since he
was so close to the major players, Quellenforschung yields unsatisfactory results,
particularly in the years after 502, where there are no direct verbal links between
Cassiodorus and anyone else. Moreover, these are years in which his attention necessarily
turned from a simple recounting of events drawn from historical sources to explicit praise
of the addressee and his family. Still, a few things can be noted.
In 500 CE, a long note records Theoderic's visit to Rome: "dn rex Theodericus
Romam cunctorum votis expetitus advenit et senatum suum mira affabilitate tractans
Romanae plebi donavit annonas. atque admirandis moeniis deputata per singulos annos
maxima pecuniae quantitate subvenit. sub cuius felici imperio plurimae renovantur urbes,
munitissima castella conduntur. consurgunt admiranda palatia magnisque eius operibus
antiqua miracula superantur" / "our master the king Theoderic was requested by the
prayers of all and came. He treated his senate with marvellous courtesy and gave
306
distributions of food to the Roman people. He gave aid to admirable buildings by alloting
a great quantity of money every year to them. And under his happy reign many cities
were renewed and heavily fortified castles were built. Admirable palaces arose and the
ancient marvels were surpassed by his great works" (1339). The passage can be divided
into two parts, the first deals specifically with the events of Theoderic's visit to Rome, the
latter part with his reign.
The AV exhibits a similar order in its presentation of the material: the visit to
Rome followed shortly by a description of Theoderic's building in Italy. The AVis more
detailed than Cassiodorus: "Post facta pace in urbe ecclesiae ambulavit rex Theodericus
Romam, et occurrit Beato Petro devotissimus ac si catholicus. Cui papa Symmachus et
cunctus senatus vel populus Romanus cum omni gaudio extra urbem occurrentes. Deinde
veniens ingressus urbem, venit ad senatum, et ad Palmam populo allocutus, se omnia, deo
iuvante, quod retro principes Romani ordinaverunt inviolabiliter servaturum promittit.
Per tricennalem triumphans populo ingressus palatium, exhibens Romanis ludos
circensium. Donavit populo Romano et pauperibus annonas singulis annis, centum viginti
milia modios, et ad restaurationem palatii, seu ad recuperationem moeniae civitatis
singulis annis libras ducentas de area vinaria dari praecepit" / "After the peace of the
church had been made in the city, Theoderic went to Rome and he visited Saint Peter very
devotedly, as if he were a Catholic. And Pope Symmachus and the whole senate and
Roman people met him outside the city with great joy. Then he entered the city and came
to the senate; he addressed the people "ad Palmam" and promised that he, with God's
help, would firmly preserve what the Roman emperors had ordained in the past.
Triumphing on his tricennalia before the people he entered the palace and displayed
circus games for the Romans. He gave to the Roman people and to the poor a subsidy
every year of one hundred and twenty thousand modii and he ordered that two hundred
pounds be given each year from the area vinaria for the restoration of the palace and the
rebuilding of the city wall" (65-67). Following the discussion of Theoderic's stay in
Rome, the AV remarks on Theoderic's building programme, mentioning construction of a
palace (presumably at Rome), a palace, baths, an aqueduct and walls at Verona, and the
restoration of the aquaeduct at Ravenna, which will be treated below. Thus, the two
passages from Cassiodorus and the AVnot only record similar details, but also in the
same order, moving from the specifics of the visit to Rome, to the more general
discussion of Theoderic's building programme.
Paul the Deacon, in two passages, seems to echo what Cassiodorus says for this
year. Immediately after the death of Odovacar, Paul writes that Theoderic "nee multo post
Romam profectus a Romanis magno gaudio susceptus est, quibus ille singulis tritici ad
subsidium annis centum viginti milia modiorum concessit" / "and not long after he went
to Rome and was received with great joy by the Romans, to whom he gave twenty-
thousand modii of grain every year as a subsidy" (15.18). But Theoderic's visit to Rome
took place six years after the death of Odovacar, and so can scarcely be described as "not
long after." In book sixteen Paul notes that "Theodericus vero dum per idem tempus
pacifice apud Italiam regnaret per singula quaeque celebriora loca regia sibi habitacula
construxit" / "And Theoderic, while he reigned in Italy peacefully through the same
period, built royal residences for himself in every famous place" (16.4). Paul separates
his description of the visit to Rome from his comment on Theoderic's building in the
same way as the two are separated in Cassiodorus' note.
There are no doubt similarities of detail in the three narratives. All three note
Theoderic's arrival in Rome, the joy of the people, and the subsidies which the king
bestowed on the people. Cassiodorus and the AVboth mention money reserved for
restoration of structures, and Paul and the AVhoih a specific amount of grain to be given
each year to the people, though they differ in amount.
Both Cassiodorus and the A V record the restoration of the aqueduct at Ravenna.
Cassiodorus dates the project to 502, saying, "dn rex Theodericus aquam Ravennam
perduxit, cuius formam sumptu proprio instauravit quae longis ante fuerat ad solum
reducta temporibus" / "our master the king Theoderic completed the aqueduct to
Ravenna, whose structure, which had for a long time been reduced to ground level, he
restored at his own expense" (1342). The A Vnotes that "aquae ductum Ravennae
restauravit, quern princeps Traianus fecerat, et post multa tempora aquam introduxit" /
"he restored the aqueduct at Ravenna, which the emperor Trajan had built, and he brought
in water after a long time" (70). Both documents mention that the aqueduct had not been
functioning for a long time. Again, similarity of detail, if not so much of language, might
suggest a connection, but only a distant one.
Over the last six years Massimiliano Vitiello has written extensively on
Theoderic's visit to Rome in 500.405 In his 2006 article in Chiron he carefully outlined out
stylistic similarities and connections of language and detail among Cassiodorus, Paul the
Deacon and the AV, concluding at the end that the Gothic History was behind the
405 Vitiello 2004, 2005, and 2006.
narratives of both the Chronica and the AV. Vitiello's suggestion requires that
Cassiodorus reworked his material from the Chronica and added a great deal of detail,
since the Gothic History almost certainly post-dates the Chronica by at least six years.406
The fact that the material does not appear in Jordanes is an impediment to his hypothesis,
but not necessarily a serious one. It is also possible that a panegyric by Cassiodorus or
something like it was the source for the AV, perhaps removed by one or two stages from
both Cassiodorus and Paul. One way or another, Vitiello's analysis makes Cassiodorus
himself the source for the information on Theoderic's visit to Rome in 500.
But given that the similarities - however tenuous - among Cassiodorus, the AV
and Paul the Deacon actually begin earlier than 500, and extend much farther back in the
case of Paul, and at least to the invasion of Italy by Theoderic in the case of the AV, it
seems slightly more likely that they shared a source or material that came to each by
slightly different paths - distantly related, perhaps, but not the same.
The remaining few historical entries are part of Cassiodorus' panegyrical
treatment of the reign of Theoderic in Italy, and will be dealt with in the following
chapter.
406 Barnish 1984.
Chapter 5: Panegyric and Chronology
In the previous four chapters I have tried to set forth the underpinnings of the
Chronica, and my approach has been traditional, making use of old techniques of
Quellenforschung and philology to dissect Cassiodorus' work and to construct a picture
of how he went about putting everything together. I have shown how the author
constructed a chronological framework by carefully preparing a consular list, especially
from the fifth and sixth centuries, and placed historical notes opposite the consular years
as best he could.
One of the reasons Cassiodorus' work yields so well to research into its author's
method is because it is such a derivative work. We have many of his sources and we have
the "siblings" of the sources we lack, such as P. Oxy. 668 and the many representatives of
the consularia tradition. Unfortunately, this means that Cassiodorus' work has very little
direct historical value. There are only a very few notes which he has which are not
attested in other authors or sources. The only material which Cassiodorus offers us which
others do not are the explicit statement that Severus was poisoned by Ricimer (1280); the
name of the villa, Brontodas, at which Anthemius was made emperor in 467 (1283); the
Vandal request for peace in 491 (1327); that the battle between Theoderic and Odovacar
in Pineta in 491 took place near the "pons Candidiani" (1326); that the aqueduct in
Ravenna was restored by Theoderic in 502 (1342); that the marriage of Eutharic and
Amalasuintha took place in 515 (1358); and the details of the celebrations in Rome in
honour of Eutharic's consulship (1364). In all, seven notes. Clearly we need to look
elsewhere for some greater value in this document.
311
The Chronica is commonly regarded as a piece of panegyrical propaganda written
by a Roman supporter of the new Ostrogothic regime.407 And there is no doubt, as I noted
above, that in some places Cassiodorus appears to have altered his sources either to avoid
giving offense to the Arian Goths (such as at 1134), or to increase the prestige of Gothic
military prowess (such as at 1172). But these views take into account only the last few
hundred years of a very long chronicle.
The last few historical entries in the Chronica are openly panegyrical, both of
Theoderic and the addressee, Eutharic Cilliga. We know surprisingly little about Eutharic
- only what we are told about him by Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the second part of the
Anonymus Valesianus. Jordanes tells us that Theoderic found Eutharic in Spain and that
he was descended from the same stock, the Amali, as Theoderic himself, and that he
brought him to Italy as a husband for his daughter, Amalasuintha.408 He describes him as
"iuvenili aetate prudentia et virtute corporisque integritate pollentem" / "of youthful age,
strong in wisdom and courage and physical health." He does not give us a date for his
death.
The Anonymus Valesianus adds colour to this bland man, who is described as
"nimis asper fuit et contra fidem catholicam inimicus" / "extremely harsh and an enemy
to the Catholic faith."409 We do not know how old he was when he married Amalasuintha,
but Cassiodorus describes him as "paene...aequaevus" with the emperor Justin, when he
was made Justin's son-at-arms after his consulship.410 Justin, however, was at least sixty-
five at this time, which means that Eutharic cannot have been a young man. He was
407 O'Donnell 1979, 42 and Amory 1997, 66-68 provide the basics. 408 Jordanes Getica 79, 250, 298. 409 AVM. 410 Variae%.\3.
312
certainly dead by the time Theoderic died in 526, though we cannot be sure exactly when
he died.411 Eutharic was not destined to play any great role in Theoderic's Italy nor had he
done anything noted by any of our sources before his marriage to Amalasuintha in 515.
This lack of activity does not make him an easy topic for a panegyrist, but Cassiodorus
does his best.
Apart from the preface, the first place the reader meets Eutharic is not, as might
be expected, near the very end, but rather, very close to the beginning of Roman history. I
noted in chapter three, as others have done, that Cassiodorus, in making a transition from
the time-line of the Assyrian kings to the Latin kings in Italy, replaces Tautanes' reign
with Latinus' reign, and ascribes Latinus the same number of years as Tautanes.
Cassiodorus' peculiar switch at this point asserts a length of reign for Latinus which
cannot be attributed to any surviving source. I propose that Cassiodorus, in bringing
Latinus into his work so crudely, did so with an eye to comparing Latinus with Theoderic,
and, more important, to comparing Aeneas to Eutharic.
The whole passage is as follows: "Latinus reg. ann. XXXII, a quo Latini sunt
appellati. huius imperii anno XXV Troia capta est. ad quern Aeneas profugus venit
factusque gener eius ei successit in regnum'V'Latinus, after whom the Latins are named,
ruled for thirty-two years. In the twenty-fifth year of his reign Troy was captured. Aeneas
came to him as a fugitive, became his son-in-law and succeeded him in the kingship."
Almost the whole passage, the length of Latinus' reign, the note on the origin of the Latin
name, and the sentence about the arrival of Aeneas, with its Vergilian echo "profugus,"
411 Getica 304, Procopius BG 1.2.2, BV 1.14.6. See also Schmidt 1934, 353, who suggests a date around 522, and Moorhead 1992, 213.
313
was written by Cassiodorus. It is not merely a reworking of Jerome.
Caution is required. But it is tempting to read the arrival of Aeneas in Italy and his
marriage to Lavinia, the daughter of the king, as a parallel to Eutharic, who also came to
Italy and married the daughter of the king. As I discussed above, we know very little
about Eutharic, and there certainly is no evidence that he came to Italy "(fato) profugus."
It would be easy and irresponsible to push the interpretation of this parallel between
Aeneas and Eutharic too far, but it certainly seems possible that Cassiodorus is
suggesting at this point that Eutharic's marriage with Amalasuintha presaged a great
empire to come, as did Aeneas' marriage to Lavinia.412
But we need to wait until the very end of the work before we meet Eutharic again.
The Chronica's last four entries are all noteworthy because they are out of the ordinary.
They close out the work as a panegyric to Eutharic by setting him into the political
landscape. The language and the syntax of these entries is different from the sparse and
simple phrasing of the earlier consularia material. Cassiodorus uses the vocabulary of
panegyric and more complicated sentence structure.
The first entry, that of 514, is the only place in the work where Cassiodorus
himself puts in an appearance. In the year of his own consulship he notes the restoration
of unity to the church at Rome following the Laurentian schism which I discussed
above.413 Cassiodorus does not say that Symmachus died that year, but comes close to
attributing the reconciliation to his addressee's influence: "me etiam consule in vestrorum
412 Heather 1989 notes that Cassiodorus, in his Gothic History, likely constructed a list of seventeen ancient Gothic kings to match the list of seventeen Roman kings between Aeneas and Romulus. He also draws attention to Cassiodorus' insertion of a forty-year interregnum to fill in a blank space in his chronology, a tactic which he also seems to have employed at Chronica 154. See above, p. 116ff..
413 See above, p. 174ff.
laude temporum adunato clero ut populo Romanae ecclesiae rednt optata concordia" /
"during my consulship, in the praise of your times, the clergy and people were united and
the hoped-for unity returned to the Roman church" (1356). We do not know exactly when
Eutharic Cilliga came from Spain to Ravenna, but Jordanes says that he was brought
specifically to marry Amalasuintha,414 which he did in 515 (1358). The term "vestra
tempora" / "your times" cannot refer to anyone but Eutharic. Perhaps he arrived in Italy
in 514, and this is Cassiodorus' way of bringing him into the narrative. The syntax and
words of this entry mark it as different from the earlier entries in the Chronica. The
subject "optata concordia" / "hoped-for unity" stands at the end of the sentence. This is
the first time the first and second person are used in the actual body of the Chronica.
The third to last entry, for 515, notes the marriage of Eutharic to Amalasuintha:
"Dominus noster rex Theodericus filiam suam domnam Amalasuintam gloriosi viri
domini nostri Eutharici matrimonio deo auspice copulavit" / "Our Lord King Theoderic
joined his own daughter, Lady Amalasuintha, in marriage to the glorious man, Our Lord
Eutharic, with God's favour" (1358). Though Jordanes mentions the marriage,415
Cassiodorus is the only source to give us a date. Again, the language is that of panegyric.
The adjective he uses to describe Eutharic, "gloriosi," is unparalleled in the rest of the
work and the phrase "deo auspice," fairly common in the Variae, is not used anywhere
else in the Chronica?16
The second to last entry, for 518, notes Eutharic's designation as consul for the
414 Get. 298. 415 Get. 298. 416 Variae 4.49.1, 8.10.11, 8.18.11, 8.19.7, 9.9.1, 9.22.4, 9.25.12, 10.3.2. This last use of the phrase is in a
letter of Amalasuintha to the senate informing them of her marriage to Theodahad: "Elegimus deo auspice consortem regni nostri felicissimum Theodahadum" / "I have chosen, with God's favour, the most fortunate Theodahad as a colleague of my reign."
following year: "Dominus noster Euthancus Cillica mirabili gratia senatus et plebis ad
edendum exceptus est feliciter consulatum" / "Our Lord Eutharic Cillica was happily
received by the wonderful thanks of the senate and people to fill the office of consul."
The note introduces the senate and the people of Rome as part of the world Cassiodorus
wishes to draw attention to. The interlocking word order of the sentence is typical of
Cassiodorus' prose, but not of the simple language of consularia, either Cassiodorus' or
others.
The final note stresses the lavish gifts and games given to the Romans by
Eutharic, and their love for him. It is not the sort of note we are accustomed to from
Cassiodorus' otherwise fairly sober work.
Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula editionibus singulis, stupente etiam Symmacho Orientis legato divitias Gothis Romanisque donatas. dignitates cessit in curiam, muneribus amphiteatralibus diversi generis feras quas praesens aetas pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit. cuius spectaculis voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub devotione transmisit. cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto amore civibus Romanis insederat ut eius adhuc praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam ad gloriosi patris remearet aspectus. ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis Romanisque dona largitus est ut solus potuerit superare quern Romae celebraverat consulatum. (1364)
In this year Rome saw many marvels in individual exhibitions, even Symmachus, the legate from the East, was amazed at the riches granted to Goths and Romans. He [Eutharic] gave honours to the senate. In shows in the amphitheatres he displayed wild beasts of various sorts which the present age marvelled at for their novelty. And for his spectacles, Africa in its devotion sent over the choicest of delights as well. And so, everywhere was filled with his high praise, and he was so firmly fixed in such a great love of the Roman citizens that when he returned to the sight of his glorious father at Ravenna, they still desired his presence. And there, with the exhibitions repeated, he showered such great gifts on Goths and Romans that he alone was able to surpass the consulship which he had celebrated at Rome.
There is clearly meant to be some sort of comparison here between the description
of Theoderic's visit to Rome in 500 (1339) and the celebrations of Euthanc's consulship.
Both entries are very long, both relate to celebratory events at Rome. But since Eutharic
had not actually done anything particularly worthy of praise, the comparison comes off a
little flat. Still, the language here is clearly that of panegyric and not of plain historical
lemmata, and the note is very different in its presentation than that which detailed
Theoderic's visit to Rome. In that passage, Cassiodorus gives a simple list of all the
things the king had done on his visit and the things he did for the city. Here, we see only
the lavish games put on by the new consul and the praise and love showered on him by
his adoring people. The amazement of the eastern legate, Symmachus, is singled out for
comment by Cassiodorus and introduces another player in this small panegyric: the
eastern empire.
Conspicuously lacking in these final notes is the emperor Justin himself. We have
noted that Cassiodorus seems not to have known when Anastasius died and when Justin
became emperor,417 but he did know that Justin was Eutharic's colleague in the consulship
and had adopted Eutharic as his son-at-arms.418 It seems best to explain this omission
with reference to the audience for the Chronica, which is resolutely Italian. Cassiodorus
made efforts to include the eastern consuls wherever he could in his work, and his
secondary time-line, after the consular list, follows the eastern emperors, but there is very
little eastern information in the Chronica. By this time the name of the eastern consul was
almost never used in the western empire and Justin's role in making Eutharic consul
could be easily swept under the carpet in favour of other, more immediately important
417 See above, p. 10. 418 Variae, 8.1.3. See also Moorhead 1992, 200-202.
players. The reference to the eastern envoy Symmachus underlines the height to which
the Ostrogothic dynasty had risen, even in comparison with Constantinople. Symmachus
serves in this context merely as the foil to the greatness of the addressee, a familiar ploy
in panegyric.
The figure of Theoderic, however, looms large over all of these events, to the
point that it is difficult not to see the work as a panegyric of Theoderic rather than
Eutharic. From 489 on he is the major character in almost every note in the Chronica,
with his name occurring eight times, six times in the nominative case. The few fragments
of the panegyric of Eutharic delivered by Cassiodorus in January of 519 reflect the same
state of affairs. The speech is clearly addressed to Eutharic and Theoderic, both of whom
are present.419 But the glory of achievement goes to Theoderic, who is addressed as
"infatigabilis triumphator" (466,14) and who is given credit for restoring Gaul to the
empire (466,17ff), and then later on for the general happiness of the age (467,15-20).
The vocative "regum prudentissime" must also refer to Theoderic (471,11) before the
fragment breaks off. In the small piece of the panegyric which we have, Theoderic gets
the lion's share of the praise. Again, this is not surprising, since Eutharic was in the
unenviable position of being praised before he had done anything more interesting than
marry the king's daughter and then be named consul. The last few entries in Chronica are
thus not merely a work in praise of Eutharic, but of the household of Theoderic.
These last notes, then, are meant to act as the panegyrical climax to the Chronica,
419 "Principes viri" 466, 2. Later on in the speech (470,10-11) Cassiodorus addresses Eutharic, asking him to advise Theoderic well: "sed tu, domine, prudentissimo principi maiestatis tuae praesta consilia" / "but you, lord, give the counsel of your majesty to our most sensible ruler." A few lines later (470,18) he addresses Theoderic: "clementissime regum." References are to Traube by page number and line number.
318
and they fit seamlessly into the rest of the work. Their subject matter, if not their
language, is in line with the information Cassiodorus had chosen for his historical
lemmata in the earlier years: buildings (1339, 1342), victories with expansion of territory
(1344 and 1349), important events at Rome (1356, 13,62, 1364), and an event in the royal
house (1358). The continuity of, not just imperial activity, but Roman activity, is
displayed from the beginning of the Chronica down through to Eutharic's consulship. In
addition to showing how the actions of Theoderic's household were completely in
keeping with the actions of earlier emperors, Cassiodorus is implicitly identifying
Theoderic as an emperor, something which, as has been noted elsewhere, we can see in
the larger picture both of Cassiodorus' Variae and in the whole tenor of Theoderic's
420
reign.
But the paucity of historical notes for Theoderic's reign seems a little strange. We
might expect (as we see with Prosper's chronicle and the regular consularia) that the years
closest to the author's own day would be full of events, particularly since they appear to
be designed to praise the ruling household. In the whole period from 494 to 519, there are
historical notes for only seven years. Two of them (500 and 519) are long for Cassiodorus
to be sure, but for a chronicle whose addressee was the heir apparent to the Gothic throne
in Italy, we might have expected more information about the deeds of Theoderic. It is not
possible that Cassiodorus simply had no events he could accurately date. It might be the
case that, in deference to Eutharic's comparative lack of achievement, Cassiodorus felt he
had to show some restraint in outlining the successes of Theoderic.
But Cassiodorus' sense of proportion may also have played a role. He aimed for
420 See Moorhead 1992, 44-51 and Amory 1997, 66-67.
319
balance in his presentation: too much information at the end would seem uneven
compared with what had gone before. Even for Trajan's reign, Cassiodorus had only six
events, and for Hadrian's, eleven. To have twelve for Theoderic (beginning with 489) is
just about right compared with his predecessors. This attention to balance especially in
the imperial period could be an attempt by Cassiodorus to stress the continuity of Roman
history, and precisely to avoid the bunching up of events in the contemporary period. He
had said, after all, in his preface that he had written the work so that Eutharic "blando
compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem" / "might run through the very long age
of the world in a pleasing abridgement" (1).
The whole work, being largely a consular list, stresses the movement of the
chronology, year-by-year, until it arrives at Eutharic's year. Cassiodorus does indeed
praise the Ostrogothic masters and presents them as suitable replacements for Roman
emperors, and, as I noted above, he altered historical notes from Prosper, but these
specific changes are few in the much larger scope of the Chronica, and to make too much
of them results in ignoring most of the work before the late fourth century.
It seems better to look for the value of Cassiodorus' work by revisiting his preface,
where he outlines his programme.
Sapientia principali qua semper magna revolvitis in ordinem me consules digerere censuistis ut qui annum ornaveratis glorioso nomine redderetis fastis veritatis pristine dignitatem. Parui libens praeceptis et librariorum varietate detersa operi fidem historicae auctoritatis inpressi. quatenus vester animus per inlustres delectatus eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem. (1)
In your princely wisdom, through which you always think over great matters, you directed me to set the consuls in order so that you, who had adorned the year with your glorious name, might restore to the fasti the
dignity of their ancient truth. I have willingly obeyed your orders and, with the mistakes of the booksellers cleansed away, I have stamped upon the work the trustworthiness of historical authority so that your mind, delighted by famous events, may run through the very long age of the world in a pleasant abridgement.
He lays heavy emphasis first on the fasti, referring to them three times, first when he
recalls Eutharic's order that he "set the consuls in order," second when he reminds
Eutharic that his name adorns the year and third when he says that Eutharic is restoring
"the dignity of ancient truth" to the fasti. He goes on to speak of two things that he has
done: he has cleaned up the mistakes of the copyists and he has stamped the work with
the "trustworthiness of historical authority."
His concerns are clear: not just to draw up an accurate and complete consular list,
but to do so through reference to reputable sources. None of the consularia which have
survived from this period can be attributed to an author, apart from Cassiodorus'. The
consularia are a sub-literary genre and their very nature means that they may be extended
by whoever owns the particular document. But we can see by comparing the documents
that their consular lists almost never provide both consuls from west and east, particularly
in the fifth and sixth centuries. For Cassiodorus, then, the value of his work lay in the
authority behind it: Jerome, Livy, Victorius, and himself.
The historical notes were not as important. They, too, make it into Cassiodorus'
preface, but almost as an afterthought. The purpose clause introduced by "quatenus" is
only loosely tied to the main clause: there is no compelling reason why Eutharic should
be more entertained by reading accurately dated historical events than inaccurately dated
ones. Still, Cassiodorus clearly took care with his historical notes. We saw in the
comparison between Cassiodorus and Prosper's notes that he often deliberately shortened
and simplified his sources' notes. Tempting as it is to read this simplification as the
"dumbing-down" of the material for the illiterate Gothic addressee, it seems clear that
Cassiodorus was attempting to mimic a particular style in his work: the consularia-style,
for lack of a better term. He passed over almost all the ecclesiastical material and
trimmed a great many longer notes to make his work conform to the consularia style:
brief, paratactic and simple. His language is of slightly higher quality than that of the
Fasti Vindobonenses priores, for instance, but only marginally. And this from one of the
most skilled Latin stylists of late antiquity.
But the final clause, with its interlocking word-order and its deliberate
juxtaposition of "compendio" with "longissimam" goes some way to pointing at a larger
aim Cassiodorus may have had: to get a grip on the long passage of time, record it and
present his work to a larger audience than just the new consul.
The Chronica is the first of Cassiodorus' public works (if we do not count the
letters from the Variae which were written while he was quaestor, but published in 538),
and it falls into place with much of his written output for the rest of his life, work which
was characterised by practical epitomization and distillation, and the organization of
more complicated material to make it available to the student. The Chronica is a work
that serves at least those straightforward purposes: it is superficially a panegyric, but is at
its heart a very simple historical document- a list of consuls, the only time-measuring
system used from the beginning of the Republic to Cassiodorus' day - drawn together
from at least four different sources and neatly laid out with three of those sources listed at
the end. Cassiodorus' reason for making sure the consular list was as complete as he
could make it is a practical one: a consular list like his is a useful tool for history. Where
he could, Cassiodorus added a second time-counting scheme, imperial reigns - another
way of hammering home the simple chronology. But the days of numbering years by
consul in either east or west were coming to a close. Cassiodorus' work was the last
attempt we know of to set out a complete record of the consuls.
His efforts with the consular list can be compared to his other scholarly and
literary pursuits. The Variae, like the Chronica, served a double function, both to praise
the Ostrogothic regime, but also as a practical guide to those writing letters in the
imperial chancery: books six and seven are made up offormulae - template letters of
appointment to various offices without actual addressees. In his Expositio Psalmorum
Cassiodorus shows a practical desire to boil down Augustine's Ennarationes in Psalmos
into a more manageable, teachable form.421 Reminiscent of his statement in the preface to
the Chronica that Eutharic will be able to peruse the long history of the world in pleasant
brevity, he says in his introduction to the Expositio that "mare ipsius quorumdam
psalmorum fontibus profusum, divina misericordia largiente, in rivulos vadosos
compendiosa brevitate deduxi: uno codice tarn diffusa complectens, quae ille in decadas
quindecim mirabiliter explicavit" / "I drew his sea, flowing from the springs of the
psalms themselves, into shallow streams, condensed and brief, embracing in one volume
so copious an amount which he set out amazingly in one hundred and fifty chapters"
(pref. 10-13). Furthermore, Cassiodorus added marginal symbols in the Expositio, as an
aid to students, "singling out rhetorical figures, etymologies...necessary dogmas and
421 See O'Donnell 1979, 139-143.
(most common) idiomata, that is, uniquely scriptural figures of speech." As in the
Chronica, he regards the epitomization of the larger work as being his contribution.
Near the end of his life he wrote the Complexiones which were short summaries
of the non-evangelical books of the New Testament, again presumably as an aid to the
student. In his preface he once again speaks of making large works small, that his work
"summas rerum in parvitate complectens, non cuncta verba discutiens, sed ad intentiones
suas summatim dicta perducens" / "embracing the fullness of matters in the small, not
discussing all the words, but drawing out the words briefly with a view to their
purpose."423 Again, Cassiodorus regards the epitomization as a valuable and useful
contribution to the study of scripture.
Cassiodorus' Institutiones, possibly his most well-known work, served a
pedagogical function as well, directing students to good commentaries on scripture and to
other works by reputable authors. Cassiodorus' methods and ideas, which he outlines in
the preface to the Institutiones, also find parallels in the Chronica. He writes that he has
written introductory books "per quos...et scripturarum divinarum series et saecularium
litterarum compendiosa notitia domini munere panderetur" / "through which both an
unbroken line of the divine scriptures and an abridged knowledge of secular letters are
made available through the Lord's gift."424 He goes on to say that in these books "non
propriam doctrinam sed priscorum dicta commendo" / "I do not favour my own
knowledge, but the words of ancient writers."425 Cassiodorus in this work was intent on
providing for his readers in the first book recommended commentaries for all the books
422 O'Donnell 1979, 160. 423 Complexiones (PL 70.1321), preface. 424 Institutiones, preface, 1. 425 Institutiones, preface, 1.
324
of the Bible and in the second a brief outline of secular topics. His aim was to cover all
the basics completely and briefly. In this effort, he directed his readers not to his own
knowledge, but to that of others. In the Chronica, too, he aimed at a complete coverage of
the fasti inside world history, and he depended on authoritative texts for his work.
All this would suggest that Cassiodorus regarded brevity and completeness as
complementary virtues in a written work. There has been a tendency to regard chronicles
and consularia not only as a sub-literary form of historical writing (which they are), but
also as a sub-standard form of historical writing, suitable only for the simple or the
ignorant. But, like it or not, the consular list was still the only way the Romans had of
getting a grip on the chronology of their history. The fifteen-year indiction cycle, a tax
cycle employed in the East and in places in Gaul and Spain as a chronological system,
was practical for day-to-day business, but really only useful for measuring fifteen years
into the past. For good historical understanding one needed at least a consular list and an
emperor list, and Cassiodorus provided both.
I have suggested above that Cassiodorus himself may have filled out the consular
list after 519, since a full list up to 559 appears in both our manuscripts. The title at the
top of the manuscripts, which is suitable for the end of Cassiodorus' career, but not the
stage he was at in 519, at least indicates that the work was brought up to date at some
later point for wider circulation. The very few historical notes about Theoderic at the end
of the work points further to a desire in the author to mimic the consularia style, since the
next person to continue it could do so seamlessly. Cassiodorus' Chronica is thus a
document which looks forward, not so much to a glorious reign for Theoderic, but to a
325
historiographical future in which the consular names and the brief historical notes are the
only real objects of praise.
Appendix 1: the Fasti Parisini
In 1892 Mommsen published the first critical edition of the Easter calendar of
Victorius in the first of his three-volume Chronica Minora, part of the Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi series.426 Of the edition's many
shortcomings, one of the most glaring is the inclusion of the consular names from 457 to
559. These are all the work of later, independent individuals and are unrelated to one
another other except in so far as they record the same or similar information from year to
year. Mommsen was aware of this, of course, but his presentation of the material is
difficult to untangle and suffers from many errors. The continuations of Victorius from
457 to 559 need a separate edition each, since they are the work of different people.
Forty-six years later, in 1938, Bruno Krusch published his own edition of Victorius.
Krusch left out the consuls from 457 to 559, but his edition, though slightly better than
Mommsen's, is hampered by being much more difficult to read and use.427
For their editions Mommsen and Krusch relied on five major manuscripts, named
G, L, S, A and Q.428 Only mss G, L and S include the complete list of consuls from 29 to
457, as well as extensions of the consular list, with G going down to 542, L to 522 and S
to 559, the end of Victorius' calendar. Manuscript A has the consuls only from 29 to 182
426 MG//yi4 volume 9, pp. 667-735. 427 For instance, Krusch included three columns of year designations, the numbering of Victorius' years
in Roman numerals (which are not actually in Victorius' work), the CE dates in square brackets, and the AUC dates, both in Arabic numerals. But his apparatus uses Arabic numerals to refer to Victorius' years which are in Roman numerals.
428 G: Ms Gotha 75, fol. 70 ff.; L: Leiden, Seal. 28; S, which both Mommsen and Krusch believed lost, but which was identified by C.W. Jones as Oxford Bodl. 309 (Jones 1937). Mommsen and Krusch both relied on the readings of Petavius (De Doctrina Temporum, Paris, 1627) and Bucherius {Doctrina Temporum Commentarius in Victorium Aquitanum, Antwerp, 1634) who both used Sirmond's manuscript; A: Mailand, Ambrosiana H 150; Q: Par. Lat. 4859.
with a significant gap between 151 and 171. But the manuscript designated Q, a plain
consular list from 379 to 558 with none of Victurius' tables of Easter dates does not
belong to the tradition of Victorius at all. It is, in fact, just what it seems: a consular list
maintained independently from ca. 399 to ca. 491. From some point after 491 the
consular list is a copy of one of the continuations of Victorius. Both Mommsen and
Krusch used Q because they erroneously believed it to be a badly copied version of
Victorius' consular list.
Mommsen could have avoided this mistake. In an 1876 Philologus article Georg
Kaufmann suggested that the consuls in Q between 379 and 457 were not the work of
Victorius.429 Kaufmann believed that the consular list of Q had been inserted into
Victorius' Easter calendar, and then extracted again, and Mommsen cites him to that
effect.430 In doing so, he either missed or rejected Kaufmann's correct assertion that the
early consuls were not Victorius' and instead latched on to Kaufmann's incorrect
suggestion that the consuls had been inserted into an Easter calendar that had no consuls.
Parisinus Latinus 4859, the manuscript which contains this consular list, begins
with a copy of Jerome's translation and continuation of Eusebius' Chronici Canones.
After Jerome, there are three folios which contain an abstract of Jerome, counting the
years from Adam to 378 CE, the sixth consulship of Valens and the second of Valentinian,
which is the final year of Jerome's work. After a short list of the rulers of the Israelites
from Moses to Sedechias, extracted from Sulpicius Severus, the consular list, which I call
the Fasti Parisini, begins. It is not clear whether the epitome of Jerome is to be taken
429 430
Kaufmann, 1876. Chronica Minora I, p. 675.
328
with the consular list, but that is the natural assumption, since the list appears to be a
continuation of the epitome. Both the epitome of Jerome and the FP were written in two
columns.
The FP are demonstrably not Victorius' list from 399 to 457 and for this reason
should not have been edited with Victorius as they were. The fact that the FP's consular
list is similar to that in the manuscripts of Victorius should come as no surprise, since the
fasti from 379 to the middle of the fifth century are well attested and the names of the
consuls were for the most part efficiently promulgated in both parts of the empire. But of
the 78 pairs of consuls between 379 and 457, nine in the FP's list (399, 400, 408, 410,
424, 440, 442, 451 and 453; see below) are clearly not taken from Victorius' nor from any
other extant list. These nine years, and thus the whole period from 399 to 453, show a list
not compiled at a later date, but maintained contemporaneously year by year as the
information on the new consuls for each year became available. Once those nine years
are taken into consideration, a number of further minor discrepancies between the FP and
the manuscripts of Victorius can be included as further evidence that the two lists are
unrelated.
In 399, the FP list the single consul for the year in the west as "Theudoro vc"; the
manuscripts of Victorius have "Mallio Theodoro vc" (G), which is correct, and "Mallio et
Teodoro" (S, L). Every other western list uses both names, though sometimes with the
"et" in between as though there were two different men. The FP are alone in using only
the single name "Theudoro."431
431 The eastern consul for 399, Eutropius, was never recognized in the west, and suffered damnatio memoriae in the east after August. See CLRE, 333.
329
In 400, the FP has only "Stelicone vc," whereas the manuscripts of Victorius all
read "Stil(l)ichone et Aureliano." In 400 contemporary inscriptions in the western empire
as well as the contemporary records of Sulpicius Severus and the acts of the First Council
of Toledo, in addition to other lists do not include the eastern consul, Aurelian, which
suggests that the FP's consular list was a contemporary compilation, while Victorius,
whose consuls were from Prosper, had over fifty years of hindsight and the opportunity to
include the eastern consul's name.
In 408 the FP reads "Basso vc et Philippo," whereas the manuscripts of Victorius
read "Basso et Philippo." The use of the abbreviation "vc" is common in inscriptions
(along with the plural counterpart "vvcc"), but is almost always used in manuscript fasti
only after a single name, that is, when only one consul is given for the year. The fact that
the abbreviation occurs here after Bassus' name indicates that the list originally had only
Bassus' name, and that the name of the eastern consul was added only later.432 This again
shows a contemporary, private, compilation of the list. The authors of CLRE assigned all
the inscriptions with only the single consular name "Bassus" to 431, when another Bassus
(presumably the son of the consul of 408) held the office.433 But the evidence of the FP
that a contemporary initially listed only the western consul calls that decision into
question and suggests that at least some of those inscriptions must belong to 408.
In 410, the FP reads "Varone vc," the sole eastern consul, whereas the
manuscripts of Victorius have, variously, "Varane vc et Tertullo" (G), "Varione et Tertulo
vc" (L), and "Varane et Tertulo" (S). Manuscript G, which is the best witness to Victorius,
432 The reading of manuscript G of Victorius for 410, discussed below, is a good example of the same phenomenon.
433 CLRE, 351 and 395.
is the entry which originally stood in Victorius. The abbreviation "vc" stands after
"Varane" because Victorius copied the entry from Prosper, who has "Varane vc consule."
But Victorius himself discovered the name of the second consul for the year and updated
the entry. Tertullus was the consular nominee of the puppet emperor Priscus Attalus, who
was put on the throne by Alaric after his sack of Rome. Prosper notes on this year that
"Roma a Gothis Alarico duce capta et ob hoc solus fuit Orientalium partium
consul'VRome was captured by the Goths under their leader Alaric and because of this
the only consul was from the east."434 The western inscriptions for this year show a post-
consulate from the previous year, but still, the presence of Varanes' name alone in the FP
suggests a contemporary listing even though it must have been added later in the year.435
For the next fourteen years, 411 to 423, there is general agreement in all our
sources concerning the consuls for each year. In 424, however, the FP lists "Castino vc
consl," whereas the manuscripts of Victorius have "Castino et Victore" (G, S) or
"Constantino et Victore" (L). John had usurped the throne with the aid of Castinus the
year before, following the death of Honorius,436 and Castinus was his nominee for the
year.437 Theodosius in the east never accepted Castinus, and John in the west never
accepted Victor. But Prosper, who compiled his list two decades later, includes Victor for
this year as well, which is what Victorius copied. The FP, however, were being
maintained year-by-year and Victor's name was never added.
In 440 FP lists the consuls of the year as "Valentiniano V et Placido." Victorius'
manuscripts have variously "Valentiniano aug et Anatolio" (G), "Valentiniano aug V et
434 Chron. Min. 1466. 435 SeeCLR£s.a.410. 436 Prosper, Chron. Min. 1470. 437 See CLRE, 383. which includes relevant bibliography on this difficult year.
Anatono" (L) and "Valentino et Anatoho" (S). The archetype of the FP, however, must
have originally read "Placido Valentiniano V," but at some early date a copyist mistook
Valentinian's name "Placidus" for the name of the eastern consul and moved it after the
emperor's name. There is no evidence that the name of the eastern consul Anatolius was
promulgated late in the west for this year, but none of the dateable inscriptions can be
certainly placed earlier than June.438 The evidence of the FP would suggest that there was
some uncertainty early in the year.
In 442 the FP read "Dioscoro vc csl," while the manuscripts of Victorius read
"Dioscoro et Eudosio" (G), "Dioscoro et Teodosio" (S) and "Dioscoro et Theodosio"
(L).439 The version of Prosper's chronicle published in 455, which is what Victorius used,
reads "Dioscoro et Eudoxio," as do Cassiodorus, the Fasti Veronenses, and the
Consularia Ravennatia. It is clear from the evidence that Eudoxius' name was
promulgated very late in the West.440 The reading of the FP once again shows itself to be
a contemporary addition to a list being kept up over time.441
438 See CLRE, 415. 439 The Fasti Vindobonenses posteriores (FVpost) also read "Dioscoro et Theodosio" for this year. This is
a strange variant in a year when the eastern consul, Eudoxius, only occurs once in the west, according to CLRE and only infrequently in the east. Perhaps early in the year it was believed in the west that Theodosius II would be Dioscorus' colleague for the year, or perhaps this is an error of a copyist who mistook "et eudoxio" for the very similar-sounding "et theodosio" - an error which could easily be made independently by different copyists. Manuscript L of Victorius also shows other signs of departure from Victorius' consular list before 457.
440 See also Burgess, 1989, 154. 441 The abbreviation "vc csl" after a single name might also be a clue to a single hand at work
maintaining the list over time. The normal abbreviation is "vc cons" and, while "vc csl" is attested elsewhere (e.g. ms L of Victorius, s.a. 486), it is not common. It occurs in the FP first in 441, then recurs in the next four years in which there is only a single consul, 442, 451, 452 and 453. It seems reasonable to suggest that the same person kept up the list at least between 441 and 453. Before 441 there are a variety of abbreviations after a single consul. "Vc" only in 399, 400, 408 and 410, "vc cnsl" in 413, "vc consl" in 424 and no abbreviation after the fourth consulship of Theodosius in 411, which is normal for an emperor. After 453, an abbreviation after a sole consul for the year occurs only in 502, "Abieno Probo vc" (a mistake, of course, because Avienus and Probus were two different people, consuls for the west and east respectively).
In 451 the FP reads "Adelfio vc csl" for the year, whereas the manuscripts of
Victorius read "Marciano et Adelfio" or something very close to it. The readings of
Victorius, Prosper, and the other lists which include Marcian are clearly later updates to
the western lists since Marcian's consulship was not recognized in the west in 451.
Valentinian did not recognize Marcian as the new eastern emperor until March 30 of 452,
almost two years after his accession. Again, the FP records the contemporary situation,
and the western compiled lists include Marcian's name.
Finally, for 453 the FP again have the contemporary listing, "Opilione vc csl,"
whereas two manuscripts of Victorius and Prosper (edition of 455 = mss MYCD), from
only a few years later, have "Opilione et Vincomalo" (G, Prosper) and "Opiniano et
Vinculomalo" (L).442 Again, Vincomalus never appears in contemporary western evidence
(not even in a post-consular dating), where Opilio is always listed as the sole consul. The
FP to this point are a strongly western list, maintained by someone who does not appear
to have attempted to find out the name of the eastern consul when it was not readily
available in the west early in the year. As we will see, however, the years 475 to 493
show a high number of eastern consuls, despite the fact that during those years the names
of eastern consuls were not widely available in the west.
A number of smaller differences between the FP and Victorius also exist which
acquire more weight in light of the major differences above. In 382, they have "Antonio
et Siagrio" whereas Victorius has "Antonino et Siagrio," in 386 "Honorio et Euodio"
instead of "Honorio np et Euodio," and in 390 "Valentiniano IIII et Eutero" instead of
"Valentiniano IIII et Neotero." In 395, they list the consuls incorrectly as "Olibrio et
442 Victurius S here reads, oddly, "Oprione vc," which looks like a correction to Victorius by a scribe.
Rufino," but the manuscripts of Victonus have "Olybrio / Ohbrio et Probino," which is
correct. The FP's "Rufino," however, may be a mistake by a copyist, a dittography from
the consul of 392. There are still further differences, but they fall under the categories of
spelling errors and variations in consular iterations, which can occur even in related
manuscripts.
Kaufmann argued that the FP was part of the tradition of Victorius chiefly
because it ended in 559.443 In fact, however, the last consulship listed in the FP is "XVII
pc," the seventeenth year after Basilius' consulship, which is 558, not 559. He says,
incorrectly, that the consuls of 534 are listed twice. They are not. The consuls of 538,
Paulinus and Iohannes, are incorrectly listed twice with increasing iterations, thus:
"Paulino IIII et Iohanne, Paulino V et Iohanne II." But the extra consulship looks like a
correction, an attempt to make the iterations come out properly, since the year 539 shows
Paulinus' sixth consulship. Kaufmann also argues that there are three years with missing
consuls, 439, 479 and 520 and three years which are made up to correct the missing
years, which suggests that the author or copyist was attempting to fit the consular list into
another chronological scheme, namely Victorius' Easter calendar. But his proof that the
three years were made up is unconvincing.
Kaufmann suggests that the missing consular pair of 439 was made up by
inserting the consuls of 450 in between the consuls of 448 and 449 and then repeating
them in 450. But this seems a very strange way of correcting an error, and the duplicated
consuls of 450 seem more reasonably explained by a copyist's slip: the second consul of
448 is "Zenone" and the second consul of 449 is "Protogene." The copyist's eyes could
443 Kaufmann, 387.
334
have drifted from 'Zenone' (448) to 'Progene' (449) and he continued copying again from
the consuls of 450 and it was only afterwards that he realized his mistake.
Kaufmann argues that the missing consular pair of 479 is made up by adding a
nameless post-consulate year after the consuls of 490 thus: "Fausto et Longino, pc,
Olybrio." But the post-consulate abbreviation can be more easily explained by someone
keeping up the list year-by-year. Olybrius, the sole consul of 491 and an easterner, shows
up in very few inscriptions, which almost all list "pc Longini et Fausti" or something
similar. The only contemporary attestation of his name in the west is an inscription from
Narbonensis from September of 491.444 His name was disseminated very late. The
compiler of the FP wrote "pc" into the blank year, but then he, or someone else, added
the name of the consul when he learned it later on. This doubling of a post-consulate date
with a consular name can be seen in other lists, too, for instance, in the Paschale
Campanum under year 475, where the entry for the year is "post cons Leonis aug Zenone
aug bis,"445 presumably updated after the author realized that Zeno had been consul at the
very beginning of that year; in the Fasti Augustani in 413: "pc id est Teracliano et Lucio,"
and in 436: "pc id est Isidoro et Senatore;"446 and in the continuation of Prosper in the
Codex Alcobaciensis under the year 454: "post consulatum Opilionis vc Aetio et
Studio."447
Finally, Kaufmann notes that in the FP the consuls of 519 and 520 are coupled to
make one year: "Euterico et Rusticiano," though Eutharic was the consul for 519 and
Rusticius for 520. He suggests that the resulting drop of a year is made up through a post
444 CIL 12.2384 = ILCV1734. 445 Chron. Min. I, 746. 446 Chron. Min. III. 385. 447 Chron. Min. I. 487
consular year between 522 and 523. Maximus was a westerner, and his name is attested
in the inscriptional record early in the year in Italy.448 However, as usual there are post-
consular dates given for this year as late as February in Aosta in Narbonensis,449 so it is
not impossible that we are seeing here the same error we saw for the year 491, that is,
someone who wrote "pc" early in the year and then "Maximo" after he discovered the
name of the consul for the year, but he wrote the name on the next line down despite the
fact that he (or someone else) had already written "pc."450 Manuscript S of Victorius
places a "pc" immediately before Maximus' name as well, a common error to which I
will return below.
Kaufmann's suggestion that a consular list was inserted into a copy of Victorius'
Easter calendar which lacked consuls, and was subsequently extracted, is cumbersome
and ill-conceived. I propose a simpler scenario. At some point after 559, someone had
both the plain consular list and a copy of Victorius1 Easter calendar related to manuscript
S. He then added the consular names that he did not have from the copy of Victorius to
the plain consular list. This was perhaps the same person who had epitomized Jerome so
as to make a complete count of years from Adam to 559.
That an extension of Victorius was the source for the consuls of the the FP from at
least 523 on can be demonstrated through a comparison of the the FP with the consular
list in manuscript S of Victorius.451 From 523 the two lists are very alike and share some
448 AE 1947 68 = AE 1993 808, dated to January 15
449 CIL 12. 2404 = ILCV32&1, from Aosta, and also a papyrus, CPR 10 [15] 1 (21.i) 450 In any case, this appears to be a shared error which points to the dependence of the FP on a copy of
Victorius closely related to manuscript S. 451 The manuscript designated S by both Mommsen and Krusch was not used directly by either of them in
their editions of Victorius. Both used the print editions of Petavius (De doctrina temporum, 1627) and Bucherius {De doctrina temporum commentarius in Victorium Aquitanum, 1634). The "lost" manuscript was identified by C.W. Jones, 1937.
errors and peculiarities which are not found in other lists. First, the post-consular date in
523 which I discussed briefly above. None of the other lists show a post-consular date for
this year, and it is out of the ordinary for the western lists to have a post-consular date for
a year when there was a western consul nominated. This suggests a connection between
the the FP and manuscript S of Victorius.
Second, from 530 to 541 the entries in both lists are very similar and unlike any
other extant lists. In the chart that follows I have included the consuls from Victorius
manuscript G for comparison.
Victorius S Fasti Parisini Victorius G
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
Lampadio et Oreste
Lampadio II et Oreste II
Lampadio III
Lampadio IIII
Paulino
Paulino II et Basillar
Paulino III et Basillar II
Paulino IV et Basillar III
Paulino V et Ioanne
Paulino VI et Apione
Paulino VII et Apione
Basilio
Lampadio et Oreste
Lampadio et Oreste
Lampadio III et Oreste III
Lampadio IIII et Oreste IIII
Paulino iuniore
Paulino I et Bilisario I
Paulino II et Bilisario II
Paulino III et Bilisario III
Paulino IIII et ioanne
Paulino V et ioanne II
Paulino VI et Appione
Paulino VII et Appione II
Basilio
Lampadio et Oreste
pc Lampadi
it pc Lampadi
tertio pc Lampadi
Paulino vc cons
pc Paulini
iterum pc Paulini
tertio pc Paulini
Iohanne vc cons
post cons Iohannis
bis it cons Iohannis
tertio pc Iohannis
The list on the right side, from ms G, is a typical western list, showing western post-
consular dates and only two eastern consuls, Orestes in 530 and John in 538, 529 and
540. The western post-consular dates are expressed as iterations in Victorius S and the the
FP. This method of recording post-consular dates is not unprecedented, but the curious
mixture of the post-consular dates of Paulinus along with the post-consular dates of
Belisarius, John and Apion from 535 to 540 does not appear in any other list with these
dates. It is also unusual for a list to record a post-consular western date along with the
eastern consul for the year. Because the confusions are so idiosyncratic, the natural
conclusion is either that the FP were copied from a close relative of the extension of
Victorius in manuscript S.
The date at which the compiler began to copy consuls from Victorius into the
plain fasti he had is harder to determine. All of the versions of Victorius show signs of
year-by-year maintenance after 457, and mere differences from the other manuscripts of
Victorius are no proof that the names in the FP were not taken from Victorius - they
could easily be from a version which we do not have. Thus, the only date we can argue
for with any certainty is the last year in which the FP are in disagreement with the pre-
457 part of Victorius, which is 453.
Having established that the FP are certainly not taken from Victorius' Cursus
Paschalis before 457, and are only from 523 certainly a copy of a continuation of
Victorius in some way related to manuscript S, it remains to consider carefully the years
between 458 and 522 to further investigate the character of the list. As I will demonstrate,
the list was probably maintained year-by-year until at least 470, but between 471 and 493
(or thereabouts) was likely a copy of a compiled list.
The consular list of the FP between 458 and at least 470 continues to show the
338
signs of year-by-year maintenance, independence from other lists, and not later
compilation. In 463, the FP alone of all written western fasti show only the western
consul, Basilius. The western inscriptions for that year, as well as the single law and letter
from that year, from pope Hilarius, dated to 10 October, also show only the western
consul.
The years 464 and 465 are curious years, not only for the FP, but for the western
fasti in general. The consuls for both years were easterners, and there appears to have
been confusion in the west in both years about which name came first.452 In 464, the
consulship of Rusticius and Olybrius, the Consularia Hafniensia as well as the extensions
of Victorius, the Paschale Campanum and Marius of Avenches all give Olybrius as
consul prior, whereas the Fasti Vindobonenses priores, Cassiodorus, the Fasti Veronenses
and the Fasti Augustani all place Rusticius first. The FP, however, has Olybrius alone.
Olybrius had been resident in Rome until 455, and was to return in 472, so it is at least
possible that the confusion in the year arises from the fact that he was known to be a
westerner. Why his name occurs in the FP without Rusticius is inexplicable.453
The order of the names of the consuls of 465, Hermenericus and Basiliscus, shows
452 While it would be tidy to find a single explanation for the confusion in both these years, I confess to being unable to provide one. The editors of CLRE note the reversals and, for 464, say that they occurred "no doubt out of habit" (463). Presumably they mean the habit of westerners to switch the order of the names officially promulgated by Constantinople. But we know too little about the promulgation of consular names in the fifth century to speak of "habit," and in any case, three years later the consuls of 467, Pusaeus and Iohannes, both easterners, appear in the west in the correct order each time they appear in the fasti and the inscriptional record. The most recent year before 464 when there had been two eastern consuls was 436, a full generation earlier, and, despite the fact that one inscription from Rome (ICUR n.s. 1 733 = ILCV3U5A) has the names reversed, the editors of CLRE note "since both were easterners, the order is the same in both parts of the empire" (407).
453 The editors of CLRE include a number of inscriptions in 526, when an Olybrius, apparently a westerner, was sole consul, and suggest that some may belong to 491, when Olybrius the son of Areobindus and an easterner, was sole consul. But given that the FP list Olybrius alone for this year, some of those inscriptions may belong to 464.
339
the same confusion in the West as the year before, though the lists which reverse the
names in 464 are not the same as the ones which reverse the names in 465. The
Consularia Hafniensia, the Fasti Augustani and the FP, along with two inscriptions,454 all
place Basiliscus first, whereas the other western lists and inscriptions put Hermenericus
first. Whatever the reason for the reversal of the names in the west in these two years, the
entries in the FP demonstrate their independence from all other lists.
The consuls for the year 470 were Severus and Jordanes. As the editors of CLRE
note for 470, the situation in this year was "fairly normal: Iordanes is disseminated in the
West rather late." The fasti all have both names, but the FP show only Severus. Likewise,
some inscriptions in Rome, Italy and elsewhere show both consuls, but some only the
western consul.455
Between at least 475 and 493, the FP give more eastern information than the other
western fasti and inscriptions, which is a marked change from the years before this. Of
the twelve years between these dates when there was an eastern consul, the FP have
eleven easterners - more than any other western list.456 The author was likely not in the
east because the names of the consuls continue to be given in the western order. In 475,
the emperor Zeno was consul for the second time for the first 9 days of January before
being driven out by Basiliscus, who annulled his consulship.457 Thus all western fasti with
454 Both inscriptions (ICUR 1 17585 and ICUR 1 19990) are from Rome. CLRE notes incorrectly that all the inscriptions place Hermenericus before Basiliscus (465).
455 Both consuls: ICUR n.x. 11.4955; ICUR nc VIII 20828; AE 1951, 89; CIL XIII 2362 = ILCV 2830; CIL XII1497 - ILCV 1927. Severus alone: ICUR nc II 4954; ICUR ns I 2118 = ILCV 4370A; ICUR ns I 3211= ILCV 300; ICUR ns I 90; ICUR ns II 6085
456 The twelve years with eastern consuls are 475, 476, 478, 479, 482, 484, 486, 489, 490, 491, 492 and 493, but I have not discussed all of these years in what follows. The FP are missing the eastern consul for 482, Trocondes. The other western lists with the most eastern consuls during these years are the ms. L continuation of Victorius, with ten, and the Paschale Campanum with nine.
457 His first consulship had been in 469.
the exception of ms S (which has Zeno added to the pc) record "pc Leonis mn Aug" or
something similar. However, the FP record Zeno as sole consul, which suggests either a
very early entry of his name into the list (possibly before the year even began), or a late,
retroactive addition, after Zeno's restoration to the throne in 476.
There were no consuls appointed in 477, and both east and west resorted to a post-
consular date: "pc Basilisci II et Armati." The FP's entry for 477, "Zenone III" appears,
therefore, at first glance to be misplaced, since Zeno's third consulship occurred in 479,
and the FP are missing that year.458 While it is at least possible that "Zenone III" is a
mistake for a post-consular date, it seems unlikely.459 More probable is that "Zenone III"
is a retroactive correction, placed into a blank year, or inserted when the list was brought
up to date at some point after this year.
In 484, when Venantius and Theoderic were consuls, the FP have "Vaenantio et
Theudorico," while no western inscriptions have Theoderic's name.460 In 486, when
Decius and Longinus were consuls, only four other western lists have Longinus' name,
and two of those, Cassiodorus and Marius, compiled their lists long after this year.461
Longinus' name appears in only one western inscription from this year, from Gallia
Narbonensis.462 In 489, the FP gives both consuls for the year, Probinus and Eusebius,
along with most of the fasti. As in 486, Eusebius, the eastern consul's name, appears in
458 See above, pp. 8-9 459 This possibility is rendered still more unlikely since for 469, the year of Zeno's first consulship, the
FP read "Martiano et Leone," which is presumably a mistake for "Martiano et Zenone," though Marius of Avenches has the same names for that year.
460 The western lists are the Fasti Vindobonensespriores and the ms. S continuation of Victorius. 461 The others are ms G of Victorius and the Consularia Hafniensia. 462 ILGN 606 = AE 1928, 00083: "Decio Longino cons" where Decius and Longinus are clearly thought
to be one man.
one western inscription only, from Gaul. Finally, in 493, the consulship of Albinus and
Eusebius, Eusebius' name occurs nowhere in the western inscriptional record, and of the
written lists only the FP and the Paschale Campanum have both names.
In the years following 493, the FP ceases to have such good eastern information.
None of the eastern consuls from 496 to 499, for instance, appear. How, then, to explain
the large number of easterners between 475 and 493 - large enough to make the FP one
of the most complete western lists from the last quarter of the fifth century? Two
possibilities present themselves. First, whoever maintained the list between 475 and 493
may simply have had close personal contacts with the east, or may have lived somewhere
(southern Gaul, for instance) where the names of the eastern consuls frequently appear
when they do not elsewhere in the west.464 Second, perhaps the list ceased to be
maintained year-by-year sometime around 475, and was updated around 20 years later
through recourse to a compiled list. Or both. As I noted above, the incorrect placement of
Zeno's third consulship suggests a mistake made well after 479.
The years between 494 and 522 show a solidly western list with very few eastern
consuls, but with no clear indicators of yearly maintenance as in the period before 470.
Certainly, these years do not belong to the tradition of our ms S of Victorius since they
show very different entries. Of the twenty-nine years between 494 and 522, eastern
consuls were appointed for twenty-two.465 The FP has only two of them (500 and 502),
and one for one of those years the name is listed as "Abieno Probo vc," where the author
clearly thought a single man was consul instead of two, Avienus and Probus.
463 C7L XII 487 = /LCT 446A 464 See CLRE, 35. 465 496-503, 505-508, 511-513, 515, 517-521.
To sum up, the Fasti Parisini is a consular list independent of all other lists until
at least 523, from which date they are related to the consular list in ms S of Victorius.
From at least 399 to 470 they show signs of year-by-year maintenance by a number of
people. Between 475 and 493, the completeness of the list suggests that year-by-year
maintenance had ended and the list was retroactively researched and brought up to date
sometime after 493, probably in southern Gaul. Between 494 and 522, the list resembles
other western lists in its resolutely western recording of the consuls, but it is not clearly
related to any other list we have. It is not impossible that it was maintained regularly by
an individual, but there are no clear signs of it. There is no indication of what the Fasti
Parisini was used for, and they must have changed hands many times times over the
years, or were copied and distributed by people who needed them. They are exactly the
kind of list we would expect to find in the hands of someone who needed a regularly
maintained consular list. Possibly, it belonged to a family which kept it up generation
after generation. It could have passed through offices and work-places in which people
needed the information for professional reasons: lawyers, businessmen, civil servants,
members of local and imperial government, church officials, money-lenders, and
monument carvers.
The fact that the FP was misidentified by Mommsen and Krusch should not
surprise us, and it is perhaps too easy for us to be hard on them. A century ago the need
for editions was great, and careful study of the lists could only come after the lists were
made widely available. Only in the last two decades has it been made possible,
particularly through the CLRE (for all its shortcomings) and the work of Richard
343
Burgess,466 to study the promulgation and recording of consular names in any satisfactory
way with all their peculiarities, errors and differences. A great deal of careful work still
needs to be done, particularly on the continuations of Victorius of Aquitaine.
466 Especially Burgess 1989 and 2000.
Bibliography I. Primary Sources.
Additamenta ad Prosperum, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 486-
499.
Agnellus, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi
vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 297-321.
Anonymi Valesiani pars posterior, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 306-
28.
Aufidius Bassus, ed. H. Peter in Historicorum Romanorum reliquiae, 1914-16 (repr. 1967
and 1993).
Cassiodorus, Anecdoton Holderi, ed. A. Galonnier uAnecdoton Holderi ou Generis
Cassiodororum. Introduction, edition, traduction et commentaire" Antiquite
tardive 4 (1996) 299-312.
Chronica, all references are to my own edition.
Complexiones in Epistulas, PL 70.1309-1422, a reprint of the edition of
Scipio Maffei (Florence, 1721).
Institutiones, ed. R.A.B. Mynors, 1937.
Orationum fragmenta, ed. L. Traube, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 12, 1894,464-485.
Variae, ed. A. J. Fridh, CCSL 96, 1973.
Expositio Psalmorum, ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 97-98, 1958.
Collectio Avellana, ed. O. Guenther, CSEL 35.
Constitutum Sylvestri, PL 8.829-840.
Consularia Hafniensia, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores
Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 486-93.
Consularia Ravennatia, edd. Bischoff, B. and Koehler, W. "Eine illustrierte Ausgabe der
345
spatantiken ravennater Annalen" Studies in Memory ofKingsley Porter, vol. 1
(1939)125-138.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 1853-2003.
Descriptio Consulum, ed. R.W. Burgess in The Chronicle ofHydatius and the Consularia
Constantinopolitana, Oxford, 1993, 175-245.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dionysii Halicarnasei antiquitatum Romanarum quae
supersunt, 4 vols., ed. Jacoby, K, 1885-1905, Repr. 1967.
Ennodius, Opera, ed. F. Vogel, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi
vol. 7, 1885.
Eugippius, Vita Sancti Severini, ed. H. Sauppe, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 1.2, 1877.
Eutropius, Breviarum ah urbe condita, ed. C. Santini, 1979.
Excerpta Sangallensia, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores
Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 298-336.
Fasti Vindobonenses, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores
Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 274-334.
Fragmentum Laurentianum in the Liber pontificalis ed. L. Duchesne and C. Vogel, 1886-
1892, repr. 1957.
Gallic Chronicle of 511, ed. R.W. Burgess, 'The Gallic Chronicle of 511: A New Critical
Edition with a Brief Introduction' in R.W. Mathisen and D. Schanzer edd. Society
and Culture in Late Antique Gaul. Revisiting the Sources, 2001, pp. 85-100.
Gregory of Tours, Opera, ed. B. Krusch et al., Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores Rerum Merovingiarum, vol. 1.
Hydatius, ed. R.W. Burgess in The Chronicle ofHydatius and the Consularia
Constantinopolitana, Oxford, 1993.
Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, ed. Ioannes Bapt. de
Rossi, 1857-1888.
Jerome, Chronica, ed. R. Helm, in Eusebius Werke, vol. 7, 1956.
John of Antioch, Fragments, ed. and trans. R. Blockley, The fragmentary classicising
historians of the later Roman Empire : Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and
346
Malchus, 2 vols. 1981-1983.
Jordanes, De origine actibusque getarum, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 5, 1882.
Julius Obsequens, Prodigiorum Liber, ed. O. Rossbach in T. Livi Periochae Omnium
Librorum Fragmenta Oxyrhynchi Reperta. Iulii Obsequentis Prodigiorum Liber,
1910.
Malalas, Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf, 1831.
Marcellinus, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi
vol. 11, (also referred to as Chronica Minora II) 1894, 60-108.
Marius of Avenches, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores
Antiquissimi vol. 11, (also referred to as Chronica Minora II) 1894, 232-9.
Olympiodorus, Fragments, ed. and trans. R. Blockley, The fragmentary classicising
historians of the later Roman Empire : Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and
Malchus, 2 vols. 1981-1983.
Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 668, ed. O. Rossbach in T. Livi Periochae Omnium Librorum
Fragmenta Oxyrhynchi Reperta. Iulii Obsequentis Prodigiorum Liber, 1910.
edd. Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S., Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 4
(1904)90-116.
Paschale Campanum, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores
Antiquissimi, vol. 9 (also referred to as Chronica Minora I), 1892, 305-34, 744-
50.
Paul the Deacon, Historia Romana, ed. H. Droysen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 3, 1878, 185-224.
Priscus, Fragments, ed. and trans. R. Blockley, The fragmentary classicising historians
of the later Roman Empire : Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, 2
vols. 1981-1983.
Procopius, ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, 1914-1940.
Prosper, Epitoma Chronicon, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 9 (also referred to as Chronica Minora I), 1892, pp.
341-499.
347
Syncellus, Ecloga chronographica, ed. Mosshammer, 1984.
Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols., 1883.
Victor of Tunnuna, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores
Antiquissimi vol. 11, (also referred to as Chronica Minora II) 1894, 178-206.
Victorius of Aquitaine, Cursus Paschalis, ed. B. Krusch, Abhandlungen der Preufiischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Nr. 8, 1938.
II. Select List of Secondary Works.
Amory, P. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554, 1997.
Bagnall, R.S., Alan Cameron, Seth R. Schwartz, K.A. Worp, Consuls of the Later Roman
Empire, 1987.
Barnish, S. "The Anonymus Valesianus II as a Source for the Last Years of Theoderic"
Latomus 42 (1983) 572-596.
Barnish, S.'The Genesis and Completion of Cassiodorus' Gothic History" Latomus 43
(1984)336-361.
Barnish, S. uCuncta Italiae Membra Componere: Political Relations in Ostrogothic Italy"
in Barnish and Marazzi, 2007, 317-337
Barnish, S. and Marazzi, F. edd. The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth
Century, 2007.
Begbie, CM. "The Epitome of Livy" CQ ns 17 (1967) 332-338.
Bessone, L. "La tradizione epitomatoria liviana in eta imperiale" v4M?Wni.30.2 (1982)
1230-1263.
Broughton, T.R.S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 3 vols., 1951.
Brunholzl, F. Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 2 vols., 1975-1992.
Brunt, P.A. "On Historical Fragments and Epitomes" CQ 30 (1980) 477-494
Burgess, R.W. '"Non Duo Antonini sed Duo Augusti': the Consuls of 161 and the Origins
and Traditions of the Latin Consular Fasti of the Roman Empire" ZPE 132 (2000)
259-289.
The Chronicle ofHydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana,
Oxford, 1993.
'The Dates and Editions of Eusebius' Chronici canones and Historia
ecclesiastica', JTS n.s. 48 (1997), 471-504.
"Consuls and Consular Dating in the Later Roman Empire" Phoenix 43
(1989)143-157.
Burgess, R.W. and Kulikowski, M. Mosaics of Time: The Origins and Development of the
Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD
forthcoming.
Cappuyns, M. J. "Cassiodore" DHGE 11 (1949) 1349-1402.
Carile, A. ed. Teodorico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente, Ravenna, 1995.
Cessi, Roberto Fragmenta Historica ab Henrico et Hadriano Valesio in Rerum Italicum
Scriptores Vol. 24, part 4, 1913.
Christensen, A. S. Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a
Migration Myth, 2002.
Christie, N. From Constantine to Charlemagne: an Archaeology of Italy AD 300-800,
Aldershot, 2006.
Croke, B. "Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes" CP 82.2 (April 1987) 117-134.
"A.D. 476: The Manufacture of a Turning Point" Chiron 13 (1983) 81-119.
Cuspinianus, J. Magni Aurelii Cassiodori Senatoris Chronicon, sive de Consulibus
Romanorum Libellus, Basel, 1553.
Degrassi, A. I fasti consolari dell'Impero Romano dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613 dopo
Cristo, 1952.
Inscriptiones Italiae, vol.XIII, fasc.l (Rome, 1947).
Demougeot, E. De I'Unite a la division de I'Empire romain 395-410: Essai sur le
gouvernement imperial, 1951.
Duchesne, L. Le Liber Pontificalis: texte, introduction, commentaire, Paris, 1886-1892.
Ensslin, W. Theoderich der Grosse, 1959.
Goffart, W. Barbarian Tides, 2006.
Halsall, G. Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376-568, Cambridge, 2007.
349
Heather, P. "Gens and Regnum among the Ostrogoths" in Hans-Werner Goetz, Jorg Jarnut
and Walter Pohl, edd. Regna and Gentes: the Relationship between Late Antiquity
and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman
World, 2003.
"Cassiodorus and the Rise of the Amals: Genealogy and the Goths under Hun
Domination" JRS 79 (1989) 103-128.
Holder-Egger, O. "Untersuchungen uber einige annalistische Quellen zur Geschichte des
5. und 6. Jahrhunderts" NA 1 (1876) 213-368.
Jones, C.W. "The 'Lost' Sirmond Manuscript of Bede's 'Computus' EHS 52 no. 206 (April
1937)204-219.
"The Victorian and Dionysiac Paschal Tables in the West" Speculum 9.4
(October 1934)408-421.
Jones, L.W. An Introduction to Divine and Human Readings (translation of Cassiodorus'
Institutiones)
1966.
Kaufmann, G. "Zu den handschriften des Canon paschale des Victorius und zu Mommsen
VIII" Philologus 34 (1876) 385-398.
Klotz, A. "Die Epitoma des Livius" Hermes 48 (1913) 542-557.
"Zu den Periochae des Livius" Philologus 91 (1936) 67-94.
Konig, Ingemar Aus der Zeit Theoderichs des Grossen: Einleitun, Text, Ubersetzung und
Kommentar einer anonymen Quelle, Darmstadt, 1997.
Kornemann, E. Die neue Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus, Text und Untersuchungen,
Klio, Beiheft 2, 1904.
Krautschick, S. Cassiodor und die Politik seiner Zeit, Bonn, 1983
Krusch, B. "Die Einfuhrung des griechischen Paschalritus im Abendlande" NE 9 (1884)
99-169.
"Uber eine Handschrift des Victurius" NE 9 (1884) 272-281.
Lehmann, P. Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz, vol. I,
1918, reprinted 1969.
Lehmann, P. Erforschung des Mittelalters, 2 vols., 1959.
350
Luiselli, B. ""Cassiodoro e la storia dei Goti," in Passagio dal mondo antico al medio
evo da Teodosio a San Gregorio Magno, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 45 (1980), 225-
253.
Maassen, F. ed. Geschichte der Quellen und der Literature des canonischen Rechts in
Abendlande bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters, 1870.
MacGeorge, P. Late Roman Warlords, 2002.
Marazzi, F. "The Last Rome: from the End of the Fifth to the End of the Sixth Century"
in Barnish and Marazzi, 2007, 279-302.
McCormick, M. Eternal Victory: Triumphal rulership in late antiquity, Byzantium and
the early medieval West, Cambridge, 1990.
Momigliano, A. "Cassiodorus and Italian culture of his time" Proceedings of the British
Academy (1955) 207-245, reprinted in Momigliano, A. Studies in Historiography,
1966, 181-210.
Mommsen, Th. "Consularia" Hermes 32.3 (1897) 538-553.
Moore, C.H. "The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy in Relation to Obsequens and
Cassiodorus" AJP 25 (1904) 241-255.
Moorhead, J. "Cassiodorus on the Goths in Ostrogothic Italy" RomanoBarbarica 16
(1999)241-259.
Theoderic in Italy, 1992.
O'Donnell, J.J. Cassiodorus, 1979.
Oeschli, L. Uber die Historia Miscella L. XII-XVIII und den Anonymus Valesianus II,
1873.
Oost, S. I., "D.N. Libius Severus P.F. Aug.," CP 65 (1970) 228-240.
Reinhold, G. Das Geschichtswerk des Livius als Quelle spaterer Historiker, Berlin, 1898.
Reydellet, M. "Theodoric et la civilitas" in Carile, A. (1995) 285-296
Sanders, H.A. "The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy and Reinhold's Lost Chronicon"
TAPA 36 (1905) 5-31.
"The Lost Epitome of Livy" in Roman Historical Sources and
Institutions, vol. 1, New York, 1904, 149-260.
Schmidt, P. L. Iulius Obsequens und das Problem der Livius-Epitome, Wiesbaden, 1968.
Sundwall, J. Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden Romertums, 1919.
Swan, M. (1967) "The Consular Fasti of 23 B.C. and the Conspiracy of Varro Murena"
HSCP1X (1967)235-247.
Syme, R. Tacitus, 1958.
Vanderspoel, J. "Cassiodorus as Patricius and Ex Patricio" Historia 39 .4 (1990) 499-503.
van der Vyver, A. "L'unique victoire contre les Alamans et la conversion de Clovis en
506" Revue beige dephilologie et d'histoire 16 (1938) 793-802.
"La victoire contre les Alamans et la conversion de Clovis" Revue
beige de philologie et d'histoire 16 (1937) 45-64.
"Cassiodore et son oeuvre" Speculum 6 (1931) 244-292.
Vitiello, M. "Cassiodoriana: Gli Excerpta Valesiana, Yadventus e le laudes del principe
Teodorico" Chiron 36 (2006) 113-133.
Momenti di Roma ostrogota: adventus,feste, politica, 2005.
"Teoderico a Roma. Politica, amministrazione e propaganda nell' adventus
dell' anno 500" Historia 53.1 (2004) 73-120.
Waitz, G. "Das ravennatischen Annalen als Hauptquelle fur die Geschichte des
Odovakar" in Nachrichten von der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Gottingen, 1865,88-123.
Ward-Perkins, B. From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Urban Public Building in
Northern and Central Italy, AD 300-850, Oxford, 1984
Wharton, A.J. Refiguring the Post-Classical City: Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem and
Ravenna, Cambridge, 1995
Wolfram, H. History of the Goths trans. Thomas J. Dunlap, 2nd edition, 1988