The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Bury)/Appendix
APPENDIX
ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE EDITOR
1. AUTHORITIES
Cassius Dio Cocceianus belonged to a good family of the Bithynian town of Nicæa. His father Apronianus had been intrusted with the governorships of Dalmatia and Cilicia, and he himself achieved a more distinguished career in the civil service. Arriving at Rome in the year in which the Emperor Marcus died (180), he advanced step by step to the prætorship (193), and subsequently held the office of consul twice (see lxxiii. 12; lxxx. 2; Corp. Insc. Lat. iii. 5587). He was prefect (ἐπεστάτησα, lxxix. 7) of Pergamum and Smyrna in the reign of Macrinus; and under Alexander Severus was at first proconsul of Africa, and was afterwards transferred to Dalmatia and thence to Upper Pannonia (lxxx. 1). After the year 229 he retired from public life, owing to an ailment of his feet (lxxx. 5).
A work on dreams and a monograph on the reign of the Emperor Commodus having elicited words of encouragement from Septimius Severus, Dion conceived the idea of writing a Roman history from the earliest time to his own day. During the intervals between his public employments abroad he used to retire to Capua and devote his leisure to this enterprise. He completed it in eighty Books, bringing the history down as far as the year of his second consulship, 229 a.d. Of this work we possess in a complete form only Books xxxvi. to lx., which cover the important period from 68 b.c. to 60 a.d. The earlier books were largely used by Zonaras whose Epitome we possess, and we have also a considerable number of fragments, preserved in the Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis, and the Excerpta de legationibus (compilations made for Constantine VII. in the tenth century).[1] For the last twenty Books we have the abridgment by Xiphilin (eleventh century), but in the case of the lxxviiith and lxxixth a mutilated Ms. of the original text. For the reign of Antoninus Pius, however (bk. lxx.), even Xiphilin deserts us; there seems to have been a lacuna in his copy.
For the history of the early Empire we have few contemporary literary sources, and thus the continuous narrative of Dion is of inestimable value. Living before the Principate had passed away, and having had personal experience of affairs of state, he had a grasp of constitutional matters which was quite impossible for later writers; though in describing the institutions of Augustus he falls into the error of making statements which applied to his own age but not to the beginning of the Principate. He affected to be an Attic stylist and aspired to write like Thucydides. (The text of Dindorf—an important contribution to the study of Dion—is now being admirably re-edited by J. Melber; the first two volumes have already appeared.)
The history of Dion was continued by an Anonymous author, of whose work we have some fragments (collected in vol. iv. of Müller's Fragmenta Hist. Græc. p. 191 sqq.), and know something further through the fact that it was a main source of Zonaras when he had no longer Dion to follow. (See below, vol. ii. p. 531.)
Herodian was of Syrian birth, and, like Dion, was employed in the civil service, but in far humbler grades. If he had ever risen to the higher magistracies, if he had ever held the exalted position of a provincial governor, he would certainly have mentioned his success; the general expression which he employs, "Imperial and public offices" (i. 2), shows sufficiently that he had no career. The title of his work was "Histories of the Empire after Marcus," and embraced in eight Books the reigns from the accession of Commodus to that of Gordian III. His own comments on the events which he relates are tedious; and the importance of his book rests on the circumstance that he was an honest contemporary; he has none of the higher qualities of an historian. (Kreutzer's dissertation, De Herodiano rerum Rom. scriptore, 1881, may be referred to).
The Historia Augusta is a composite work, in which six several authors, who lived and wrote in the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine, had a hand. These authors however were not collaborators and did not write with a view to the production of the work which we possess. The Historia Augusta seems, in the light of recent criticism, to have been an eclectic compilation from a number of different, originally independent histories.
Ælius Spartianus wrote, by the wish of the Emperor Diocletian, whom he often addresses, a series of Imperial biographies (including Cæsars as well as Augusti) from the death of the dictator (post Cæsarem dictatorem; ii. 7, 5). He came down at least as far as Caracalla.
Vulcacius Gallicanus likewise addressed to Diocletian a work on the lives of all the Emperors who bore the full title of Augustus, whether by legitimate right or as tyrants. See vi. 3, 3.
The series of Trebellius Pollio was on a more limited scale. It began with the two Philips, and embracing all Emperors, whether renowned or obscure, reached as far as Claudius and his brother Quintillus. It was not dedicated to Diocletian but was written in his reign, before Constantius Chlorus had been raised to the dignity of Augustus, that is before 1st May 305 (cp. xxiii. 7, 1, where Claudius is described as the ancestor Constanti Cæsaris nostri; cp. too, ib. 14, 3, where Constantinus is an error for Constantius, and xxiv. 21, 7, where we get the prior limit of 302). It is probable that the work of Pollio was a continuation of another series of Lives which ended with the accession of Philip; and it is possible that this presumable series may have been actually that of Spartian or Vulcacius, but it is quite uncertain.
Flavius Vopiscus of Syracuse professedly continued the work of Pollio, and carried it down as far as the death of Carinus and accession of Diocletian. He wrote, at least, the life of Aurelian between 1st May 305 and 25th July 306, the period in which Constantius was Emperor; et est quidem iam Constantius imperator, xxvi. 44, 5.
Julius Capitolinus wrote another series of Imperial biographies, of which some were composed under, and dedicated to, Diocletian, while others were written at a later period for Constantine. Where he began is uncertain; the earliest Life from his pen which we possess is that of Antoninus Pius, the latest those of Maximus and Balbinus. Of the Lives which are extant under his name, those of Marcus, Lucius Verus, and Macrinus contain the name of Diocletian. Those of Albinus and the Maximins have internal notes of their dedication to Constantine. As Albinus comes chronologically between Verus and Macrinus, both dating from the reign of Diocletian, it is impossible, if the ascription of Macrinus to Capitolinus is right, to draw the conclusion that all the earlier Lives were written in the earlier period, and all the later Lives in the later. But to this point I shall return.
Aelius Lampridius dedicated his Imperial biographies to Constantine. He began with Commodus, if not earlier, and intended to include Diocletian and Maximian. The latest of his Lives that exists is that of Alexander Severus.
The original Ms. of the Historia Augusta, from which our Mss. are derived, contained a complete series of Imperial biographies, from Hadrian to Carinus, put together from the works of these six writers. The work of Pollio, and its continuation by Vopiscus, were included in their entirety. The contributions drawn from the various biographers may be conveniently seen in the following table:—
| Spartian: |
|
i. ii. ix. x. xi. xiii. |
(date: before May 305). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Vulcacius: |
|
vi. | (date: before May 305). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Capitolinus: |
|
iii. iv. v. viii. xii. xix. xx. xxi. |
(date: before May 305). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (date: reign of Constantine). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lampridius: |
|
vii. xvi. xvii. xviii. |
(date: reign of Constantine). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pollio |
|
xviii. xxv. |
to | (date: before May 305). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Vopiscus: |
|
xxvi. xxx. |
to | (date: after May 305, and begun before July 306). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I. The Life of Geta (xiv.) I have not included in this list. The name of the author is not given in the Mss.; the editio princeps assigned it to Spartianus. There is, however a serious objection against attributing it to Spartian in the lack of decisive external evidence. For it is dedicated to Constantine, whereas the Lives written by Spartian are dedicated to Diocletian. The fact that Spartian intended to write a life of Geta (see xiii. 11, 1) proves nothing; for there is nothing to show that separate Lives of Geta were not also included in the collections of Lampridius and Capitolinus, and that the compiler of the Historia Augusta did not prefer one of them to the Geta of Spartian
II. The Life of Opilius Macrinus (xv.) I have also omitted, although the Mss. ascribe it to Capitolinus. But it is highly probable that the Inscriptio is not genuine. For the author of this Life only knows of two Gordians (3, 5, nec inter Antoninos referendi sunt duo Gordiani), herein agreeing with Lampridius (xvi. 32, and xvii. 34, 6); whereas Capitolinus is not only aware of the three Gordians, whose lives he wrote (xx.), but criticizes the ignorant writers who only speak of two (xx. 2, 1, Gordiani non, ut quidam inperiti scriptores locuntur, duo sed tres fuerunt). This flagrant contradiction which imperatively forbids us to ascribe the Gordians and Macrinus to the same writer, is borne out by the fact that Macrinus is dedicated to Diocletian, whereas Albinus is addressed to Constantine. It is natural to suppose that Capitolinus wrote his Lives in chronological order, and completed in the reign of Constantine the biographical series which he had begun in that of Diocletian. If we decide that our Macrinus is not really his work, we restore the natural order. We cannot, however, suppose that Macrinus was the composition of Lampridius, who wrote under Constantine. We must attribute it either to Spartian or to Vulcacius.
III. The archetype of our Mss. was mutilated, and, unfortunately for the history of a very difficult period, there is a lacuna extending from the end of Maximus and Balbinus into the Two Valerians, of which only a congeries of fragments remains. Thus the Lives of Philip, Decius, and Gallus by Trebellius Pollio are lost. The subscription at the end of Maximus and Balbinus attributes the Valerians to Capitolinus, but this is clearly an insertion made after the lost Lives had fallen out.
IV. In general the Lives are arranged in chronological order. There are three remarkable deviations. (1) Didius Julianus comes after Verus and before Commodus, in the place where we should expect Avidius Cassius, while Avidius comes where we expect Julianus. (2) Albinus comes after Macrinus instead of following Pescennius; and (3) Heliogabalus, Diadumenus, Macrinus takes the place of the proper order Macrinus, Diadumenus, Heliogabalus. In all three cases Peter has corrected the Mss. in his edition. These misplacements cannot be explained by mistakes in the binding of the sheets (quaternions) of the archetype, though such mistakes certainly occurred and led to minor misplacements notably that in the Life of Alexander, c. 43 (see Peter's ed.).
All these writers have much the same idea of historical biography. They give a great many personal details, and are fond of trivial anecdotes; but they have no notion of perspicuous arrangement, and no apprehension of deeper historical questions. Their chief source for the earlier Lives was Marius Maximus (used by Spartian, Vulcacius, Capitolinus and Lampridius, and criticized by Vopiscus as homo omnium verbosissimus, xxix. 1), who continued the work of Suetonius, from Nerva to Elagabalus. He lived about 170-230 a.d. (See, for a daring attempt to reconstruct the history of Marius, Müller's essay in Büdinger's Untersuchungen zur römischen Kaisergeschichte, vol. iii. The tract of J. Plew, Marius Maximus als directe und indirecte Quelle der Scriptores Hist. Aug., 1878, is of much greater value.) Capitolinus and the author of the Vita Macrini, also used a work of Junius Cordus who devoted himself to the elucidation of the obscurer reigns (xv. 1). But there were other stray sources both Latin and Greek. For example Acholius, master of ceremonies to the Emperor Valerian, described the journeys of Alexander Severus and was consulted by Lampridius (xviii. 64).The same writer wrote Acta, in the ninth Book of which he dealt with the reign of Valerian (xxvi. 12). For other sources see Teuffel, Gesch. der rom. Litt., § 387. The introduction of Vopiscus to his Life of Aurelian is well worth reading. It throws some light on the way in which these lives were written and the sources which the writers commanded. We learn that Aurelian's daily acts were written by his own orders in libri lintei, and the historian could obtain them from the numbered cases[2] of the Ulpian Library. The war of Aurelian then was an official account (charactere historico digesta).
The citation of original documents (both genuine and spurious) is a feature of the Historia Augusta. Vopiscus, and perhaps the others in some cases, took these directly from the originals in the Ulpian Library, but in the case of the earlier Lives it is highly probable that they were drawn, at second hand, from Marius Maximus, who included such pièces justicatifs in his work.
The uncertainty which prevailed in the reign of Diocletian as to leading events which happened as late as the reign of Aurelian is illustrated instructively by the dispute among historical students, recorded by Vopiscus, as to whether Firmus, the tyrant of Egypt, had been invested with the purple, and reigned as an Emperor, or not (xxix. 2).
A special word must be said about the Lives of Trebellius Pollio. It has been shown with tolerable certainty, by the investigations of H. Peter, that all the original documents which he inserts, whether transactions, or letters, or speeches, are forgeries. He has also been convicted of unfairness in his presentation of the personality of Gallienus. When Gibbon says (chap. x. note 156), that the character of that unfortunate prince has been fairly transmitted to us, on the ground that "the historians who wrote before the elevation of the family of Constantine, could not have the most remote interest to misrepresent the character of Gallienus," he overlooks the internal evidence in the Biographies of Pollio (as pointed out above) which proves that this writer was actuated by the wish to glorify Constantius indirectly by a glorification of Claudius. He had thus a distinct motive for disparaging the abilities and actions of Gallienus. For, by pourtraying that monarch as incapable of ruling and utterly incompetent to cope with the dangers which beset the Empire, he was enabled to suggest a contrast between the contemptible prince and his brilliant successor. Through such a contrast the achievements of Claudius seemed more striking. (Recently F. Rothkegel in a treatise on Die Regierung des Gallienus, of which the first part has appeared, 1894, has endeavoured to do justice to Gallienus, and show that he was not so bad or incompetent as he has been made out.)
The best text of the Historia Augusta is that of H. Peter, who is the chief authority on the subject. Out of the large literature, which bears on these biographies, I may refer to Gemoll's Die Script. Hist. Aug. 1886, which has been largely used in this account of the Augustan Biographies. Dessau has recently proved (Hermes, 1889) that the Lives were seriously interpolated in the age of Theodosius. His daring thesis that they are entirely forgeries is rejected by Mommsen, who admits the interpolations (ib. 1890).
When the Historia Augusta deserts us, our sources, whether Greek or Latin, are either late or scrappy. We can extract some historical facts from a number of contemporary panegyrical orations, mostly of uncertain authorship, composed for special occasions under Maximian and his successors. These will be best consulted in the xii. Panegyrici Latini edited by Bährens. No. 2 in praise of Maximian is doubtfully ascribed to Claudius Mamertinus; it was composed at Trier in 289 a.d. for 21st April, the birthday of Rome. No. 3, said to be by the same author, is a genethliacus for Maximian's birthday in 291. No. 4 is the plea of Eumenius of Augustodunum pro restaurandis scholis pronounced in the end of 297 before the praeses provinciae. No. 5, of uncertain authorship, but probably by Eumenius, is a panegyric on Constantius, delivered in the spring of the same year at Trier. No. 6 extols Maximian and Constantine, on the occasion of the marriage of Constantine with Fausta, Maximian's daughter, 307. No. 7 (probably by Eumenius), is a panegyric on Constantine, delivered at Trier, shortly after the execution of Maximian, 310. No. 8 (also plausibly ascribed to Eumenius), is a speech of thanksgiving to Constantine for benefits which he bestowed upon Autun, 311. No. 9 is a eulogy of Constantine pronounced at Trier, early in 313, and contains a brief account of his Italian expedition No. 10 bears the name of Nazarius, and is likewise a panegyric of Constantine, dating from the fifteenth year of his reign, 321. (On Eumenius cp. Brandt, Eumenius von Augustodunum, &c., 1882.)
Sextus Aurelius Victor was appointed (Ammianus tells us, xxi. 10, 6) governor of the Second Pannonia by the Emperor Julian in 361; and at a later period became Prefect of the City. Inscriptions confirm both statements (see C. I. L. 6, 1186, and Orelli-Henzen, 3715). He was of African birth (see his Cæs. 20, 6), and a pagan. Some think that the work known as Cæsares was composed in its present form by Victor himself; but in the two Mss. (Bruxell. and Oxon.) the title is Aurelii Victoris historiæ abbreviatæ, and Th. Opitz (Quæstiones de Sex. Aurelio Victore, in the Acta Societ. Philol. Lips. ii. 2) holds that it is an abridgment of a larger work—an opinion which is shared by Wölfflin and others. (A convenient critical edition has been recently brought out by F. Pichlmayer, 1892.) The Epitome (libellus de vita et moribus imperatorum breviatus ex libris Sex. Aurelii Victoris a Cæsare Aug. usque ad Theodosium) seems dependent on the Cæsares as far as Domitian, but afterwards differs completely. Marius Maximus was very probably one of the chief sources.
Eutropius held the office of magister memoriae at the court of Valens (365-378 a.d.), to whom he dedicated his Short Roman History (Breviarium ab urbe condita). He had taken part, as he tells us, in the fatal expedition of Julian, 363 a.d. (x. 16, 1). His handbook, which comes down to the death of Jovian, was a success, and had the honour of being translated into Greek about 380 a.d. by the Syrian Paeanius, a pupil of Libanius (see above, p. 185). It contrasts favourably with other books of the kind, both in matter and in style. His chief sources were Suetonius, the writers of the Historia Augusta, and the work of the unknown author who is generally designated as the "Chronographer of 354".
This work, unknown to Gibbon, was published and commented on by Mommsen in the Abhandlungen der sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissensch. in 1850, and has been recently published by the same editor in vol i. of the Chronica Minora in the M. H. G. It contains a number of various lists, including Fasti Consulares up to 354, the praefecti urbis of Rome from 258 to 354, the bishops of Rome up to Liberius (352). The Mss. contain later additions, especially the so-called Chronicon Cuspiniani (published by Cuspinianus in 1552 along with the Chronicle of Cassiodorus), which is a source of value for the reigns of Leo and Zeno and the first years of Anastasius.
Another historical epitome dedicated to Valens was that of (Rufus) Festus, who seems also to have been a magister memoriae. The time at which his book was composed can be precisely fixed to 369 a.d. by his reference to "this great victory over the Goths" (c. 29) gained by Valens in that year and by the fact that he is ignorant of the province of Valentia, which was formed in the same year. Festus has some valuable notices for the history of the fourth century.
L. Caelius Lactantius Firmianus lived at Nicomedia under Diocletian ⟨and⟩ Constantine, and taught rhetoric. In the later years of his life he had the honour of acting as the tutor of Constantine's son, Crispus. Our chief authority for his life is Jerome; cp. esp. De Viris Illust., 80. His works were mainly theological, and the chief of them is the Divine Institutions in seven Books. But the most important for the historian is the treatise De Mortibus Persecutorum,—concerning the manners of death which befel the persecutors of Christianity from Nero to Maximin. It was composed in 314-315 a.d. Its authorship has been a matter of dispute, for it does not bear the name Lactantius, but L. Cæcilius. It is, however, by no means improbable that L. Cæcilius is Lactantius, and that the treatise is that enumerated by Jerome (loc. cit.) among his works as de persecutione librum unum. There is a remarkable resemblance in vocabulary and syntax with the undoubted works of Lactantius, and differences in style can be explained by the difference of subject. The author of the De Mortibus is accurately informed as to the events which took place in Nicomedia, and he dedicates his work to Donatus, to whom Lactantius addressed another treatise, De Ira Dei. Due allowance being made for the tendency of the De Mortibus, it is a very important contemporary source.
Other authorities which, though referred to in the present volume, are more concerned with the history of subsequent events, such as Ammianus Marcellinus, the Anonymous known as Anon. Valesianus, Eusebius, Zosimus, will be noticed in the Appendix to vol. ii.
Modern Works. For the general history: Schiller's Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit (2 vols., from Augustus to Theodosius I.), up to date and very valuable for references. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, vol. v. Die Provinzen von Casar bis Diocletian (also in Eng. trans. in 2 vols.). Hoeck's Römische Geschichte (reaching as far as Constantine) is now rather antiquated; Duruy's History of Rome (to Theodosius the Great) may also be mentioned. For the general administration, including the military system of which Gibbon treats in chap. i.: Marquardt, Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer (Staatsverwaltung, vols. iv.-vi.); and Schiller's summary in Ivan Müller's Handbuch der klass. Alterthumswissenschaft. For manners, social life, &c., under the early empire: Friedländer's Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Ausgang der Antonine. For chronology: Clinton's Fasti Romani, and Goyau's short Chronologie de l'Empire romain; Klein's Fasti Consulares.
A few special monographs (in addition to those referred to elsewhere) may be mentioned here. Hundertmark, de Imperatore Pertinace. Höfner, Untersuchungen zur Gesch. des Kaisers L. Septimius Severus; A. de Ceuleneer, Essai sur la vie et la règne de Septime Sèvere; Wirth, Quaestiones Severianae. A. Duncker, Claudius Gothicus. Preuss, Kaiser Diokletian und seine Zeit; Vogel, Der Kaiser Diokletian.
2. CONQUEST OF BRITAIN—(P. 4, and P. 36)
It may be well to note more exactly how Roman arms progressed in Britain after Claudius. (Our chief authority is the Agricola of Tacitus.) The first legatus sent by Vespasian was Petillius Cerealis, who fought against the Brigantes and subdued the eastern districts of the island as far north as Lincoln (Lindum). A line drawn from Chester (Deva) to Lincoln would rightly mark the limits of Roman rule at this time. Cerealis was succeeded by Frontinus (whose treatise on the science of warfare is extant), and he reduced the Silures (in the west). Then came Agricola, whose government lasted from 78 to 85 a.d. He attempted to extend the Roman frontiers both northward and westward, but failed to consolidate his conquests. The only lasting fruit of the enterprises of Agricola was the acquisition of York (Eburacum),—a fact which Tacitus does not record and which we have to infer.
On p. 36, n. 34, Gibbon mentions nine colonies in Britain, on the authority of Richard of Cirencester, which has no value. The only towns, which we know to have had the rank of coloniae, are Camalodunum, Eburacum, Glevum, Lindum. Verulamium was a municipium.
3. THE CONQUESTS OF TRAJAN, AND POLICY OF HADRIAN—(P. 5)
The first Dacian war of Trajan lasted during 101 and 102 a.d. and Trajan, celebrated his triumph at the end of the latter year, taking the title of Dacicus. The second war began two years later, and was concluded in 107 by the dissensions of the barbarians and the suicide of Decebalus. Our only contemporary sources for these wars are monumental,—the sculptures on the Pillar of Trajan and some inscriptions. Unfortunately Trajan's own work on the war has perished. (Arosa and Froehner have published in a splendid form photographic reproductions of the scenes on the column of Trajan, Paris, 1872-1874. For details of the war, see Jung, Römer und Romanen in den Donauländern; a paper of Xenopol in the Revue Historique, 1886; and an interesting Hungarian monograph by Király on Sarmizegetusa, Dacia fävárosa, 1891. On the reign of Trajan, consult Dierauer's paper in Büdinger's Untersuchungen, vol. i., and De la Berge, Essai sur la règne Trajan. I may also refer to the Student's Roman Empire.)
Trajan's Dacia must be carefully distinguished from Dacia ripensis south of the Danube, a province formed, as we shall see, at a much later date. The capital of northern Dacia was Sarmizegetusa, a Dacian town, which was founded anew after Trajan's conquest under the name of Ulpia Trajana. The traveller in Siebenbürgen may now trace the remains of this historic site at Várhely, as the Hungarians have named it. H. Schiller lays stress on one important result of the Dacian war: "The military centre of gravity of the Empire" was transferred from the Rhine to the Danube (Gesch. der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 554).
Gibbon omits to mention as a third "exception," besides Britain and Dacia, the acquisition of new territory in the north of Arabia (east of Palestine), and the organization of a province of "Arabia" by Cornelius Palma (106 a.d.). This change was accomplished peacefully; the two important towns of Petra and Bostra had been already Roman for a considerable time. The chief value of the province lay in the fact that the caravans from the East on their way to Egypt passed through it. There are remarkable ruins at Petra which testify to its importance.
Hadrian, as Gibbon explains, narrowed the boundaries of the Empire in the East (it may be disputed whether he was right in resigning Great Armenia); but he was diligent in making strong the defences of what he retained. The Euphrates was a sufficient protection in itself; but in other quarters Hadrian found work to do, and did it. He built forts on the northern frontier of Dacia; he completed the rampart which defended the exposed corner between the Danube and Rhine; and it is probable that he built the great wall in Britain, from the mouth of the Tyne to the Solway. He visited Britain in 122 a.d. (The chronology of his travels given by Merivale must be modified in the light of more recent research. See J. Dürr, Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian, 1881, and the Student's Roman Empire.)
It has been said that under no Emperor was the Roman army in better condition than under Hadrian. Dion Cassius regarded him as the founder of what might be almost called a new military system, and from his time the character of the army becomes more and more "cosmopolitan" (Schiller, i. 609).
4. THE ROMAN ARMY—(P. 12)
In his account of the army Gibbon closely followed Vegetius, whose statements must be received with caution. I may call attention here to a few points.
(a) The legion contained ten cohorts; and the cohort, which had its own standard (signum), six centuries. Each century was commanded by a centurion. Under the early Empire, each legion was commanded by a tribunus militum Augusti (under the republic, trib. mil. a populo), who, however, was subject to the authority of a higher officer, the legatus legionis, who was supreme commander of both the legion and the auxiliary troops associated with it. In later times (as we learn from Vegetius) the sphere of the tribune was reduced to the cohort. The number of soldiers in a legion was elastic, and varied at different times. It is generally reckoned at six thousand foot, and one hundred and twenty horsemen (four turmae).
(b) The auxilia included all the standing troops, except the legions, the volunteers (cohortes Italicae civium Romanorum voluntariorum), and of course the praetorian guards. They were divided into cohorts, and were under the command of the legati. Cavalry and infantry were often combined, and constituted a cohors equitata. Each cohort (like the legionary cohort) had its standard, and consisted of six or ten centuries, according to its size, which might be five hundred or a thousand men. To be distinguished from the auxilia were a provincial militia, which appear in certain provinces (such as Rætia, Britain, Dacia). They were not imperial, and were supported by provincial funds (Mommsen, Die röm. Provinzialmilizen, Hermes, xxii. 4).
(c) The use of "artillery" on a large scale was due to Greek influence. It played an important part in the Macedonian army. The fixed number of engines mentioned in the text (ten onagri and fifty-five carroballistae) was perhaps introduced in the time of Vespasian. Vegetius, ii. 25 : Josephus, Bell. Jud. 5, 6, 3.
(d) As for the distribution of the troops, Gibbon arrived at his statement by combining what Tacitus tells of the reign of Tiberius, and what Dion Cassius tells of the reign of Alexander Severus; always a doubtful method of procedure, and in this case demonstrably leading to erroneous results. Under Tiberius in 23 a.d. there were four legions in Upper Germany, four in Lower Germany, three in Spain, two in Egypt, four in Syria, two in Pannonia, two in Dalmatia, two in Moesia, two temporarily removed from Pannonia to Africa. New legions were created by Claudius, Nero, Domitian, &c.; on the other hand, some of the old legions disappeared, or their names were changed. Three new legions (i., ii., and iii. Parthica) were instituted by Septimius Severus. Each legion had a special name. A list of the legions (thirty in number) in the time of Marcus Aurelius will be found in Marquardt, Röm Alterthumer, iii. 2, 356. The history of the Roman legions is a very difficult subject, and the conclusions of Pfitzner (Geschichte der romischen Kaiserlegionen) are extremely doubtful (see Mr. E. G. Hardy in the Journal of Philology, xxiii. 29 sqq.).
(e) The cohortes urbanae had their headquarters in the Forum Suarium (Pig-market) at Rome. They were at first four in number, of one thousand men each, until the time of Claudius, who seems to have increased the number to six; Vespasian perhaps added another. Some of these regiments were sometimes stationed elsewhere; for example, at Lyons, Ostia, Puteoli.
See further article Exercitus in Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities, new edition.
5. THE ROMAN NAVY—(P. 18)
The fleets of Ravenna and Misenum were called the classes praetoriae, a fitting name, as they were the naval guards of the Emperor as long as he resided at Old Rome.
The fleet at (1) Forum Julium was discontinued soon after the time of Augustus. The other lesser naval stations under the Empire were (2) Seleucia, for the classis Syriaca; (3) Alexandria, for the classis Augusta Alexandreae; (4) the Island of Carpathos; (5) at the beginning of the fifth century, Aquileia, for the classis Venetum. Besides these there were (6) the classis Pontica, stationed in the Euxine or in the Propontis, and (7) the classis Britannica, both mentioned in the author's text. There were also fleets on the three great rivers of the Empire; (8) the classis Germanica on the Rhine; (9) the classis Pannonica and Mocsica on the Danube; and (10) a fleet on the Euphrates (mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii. 3, 9).
6. THE PROVINCES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN 180 A.D.—(P. 18)
For a general view of the provinces, the reader must be referred to Mommsen's brilliant volume Die Provinzen von Cäsar bis Diocletian (translated into English in two vols.). For the general administration, including the military system, see Marquardt, Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer (Staatsverwaltung, vols, iv.-vi.).
| 1. Sicilia, the first Roman province, 241 B.C. It became a senatorial province in 27 B.C. | ||
| 2. Sardinia and Corsica, 231 B.C. Senatorial in 27 B.C., but became imperial in 6 A.D. Again senatorial under Nero; once more imperial under Vespasian, and governed by a procurator et praeses. (Given to senate again by M. Aurelius but resumed by Commodus.) | ||
| 3. Hispania citerior, or Tarraconensis, 197 B.C.; imperial. (Divided into 3 dioceses, each under a leg. Augusti.) | ||
| 4. Baetica, senatorial. 5. Lusitania, imperial. |
(These formed one province under the Republic, Hispania ulterior (197 B.C.), which was divided soon after the foundation of the Empire (27 B.C.). | |
| 6. Gallia Narbonensis, after 121 B.C. (At first, imperial, after) 22 B.C. senatorial. | ||
| 7. Aquitania, 27 B.C. 8. Lugdunensis, 27 B.C. 9. Belgica, 27 B.C. |
Called collectively tres Galliae, at first under one imperial governor; after 17 A.D. each had its own imperial governor. | |
| 10. Germania superior, 17 A.D. (?). 11. Germania inferior, 17 A.D. (?). |
The civil administration of these frontier districts was united with that of Belgica. The military commanders were consular legati. | |
| 12. Alpes Maritimæ, 14 B.C. made an imperial province, governed by a (prefect, afterwards a) procurator. | ||
| 13. Alpes Cottiæ, under Nero, imperial (under a procurator et praeses). | ||
| 14. Alpes Poeninæ (or A. Poeninæ et Graiæ); in second century became an imperial province (under a procurator). | ||
| 15. Britannia, 43 A.D., imperial. | ||
| 16. Rætia, 15 B.C., imperial (under a procurator); but after Marcus Aurelius governed by the legatus pro prætore of the legion Concordia. | ||
| 17. Noricum, 15 B.C., imperial, under a procurator. After Marcus, under the general of the legion Pia. (Dion Cassius, lv. 24, 4. ) | ||
| 18. Pannonia superior. 19. Pannonia inferior. 20. Dalmatia, or Illyricum. |
After its conquest Pannonia was added to the province of Illyria (44 B.C.), imperial; which was broken up into Pannonia and Dalmatia 10-14 A.D.; Dalmatia under a consular legatus. Pannonia was broken up by Trajan (102-107 A.D.) into the two Pannoniæ, each under a consular legatus (at least under Marcus). | |
| 21. Moesia superior. 22. Moesia inferior. |
Moesia, 6 A.D., an imperial province, was broken up into the two Moesias by Domitian under consular legati. | |
| 23. Dacia Porolissensis. 24. Dacia Apulensis. 25. Dacia Maluensis. |
Dacia, 107 A.D., was at first one province (imperial). Hadrian broke it up into two (superior and inferior). Marcus made a new triple division (not later than 168 A.D.), and placed the provinces under consular legati. | |
| 26. Thracia, 46 A.D., imperial (at first under a procurator, but from Trajan forward) under a legatus. | ||
| 27. Macedonia, 146 B.C.; senatorial in 27 B.C.; from Tiberius to Claudius,
imperial and united with Achaia; after Claudius, senatorial. | ||
| 28. Achaia. 29. Epirus. |
Included in Macedonia, 146 B.C.; together formed a senatorial province, 27 B.C.; after having been united with Macedonia (15 and 44 A.D.), restored to the senate, and declared free by Nero, it was made senatorial by Vespasian. This Emperor probably separated Epirus (including Acarnamia), imperial, under a procurator. | |
| 30. Asia, 133 B.C.; senatorial 27 B.C. (under a consular). | ||
| 31. Bithynia and Pontus, 74 and 65 B.C.; senatorial 27 B.C., became under Hadrian imperial. | ||
| 32. Galatia (including Pontus Polemoniacus) 25 B.C. imperial; united twice and twice severed from Cappadocia; finally separated by Trajan and placed under a praetorian legatus. | ||
| 33. Cappadocia (including Lesser Armenia) 17 A.D. imperial; (procuratorial till Vespasian, 70 A.D., gave it a consular legatus). | ||
| 34. Lycia and Pamphylia, 43 A.D.; after various changes definitely constituted as imperial by Vespasian, 74 A.D., but transferred to the senate by Hadrian. | ||
| 35. Cilicia, 102 B.C. At one time apparently united with Syria, but independent since Vespasian. From Hadrian (including Trachea) imperial under legatus; Severus transferred Isauria and Lycaonia from Galatia to Cilicia. | ||
| 36. Cyprus, 58 B.C.; at first united with Cilicia; 22 B.C., became an independent senatorial province. | ||
| 37. Syria, 64 B.C.; imperial under consular legatus, 27 B.C. | ||
| 38. Syria Palaestina ( = Judæa), separated from Syria 70 A.D., imperial under legatus. | ||
| 39. Arabia, 106 A.D., imperial. | ||
| 40. Aegyptus, 30 B.C., imperial domain under praefectus Aegypti. | ||
| 41. Creta and Cyrene, at first one province (67 B.C. and 74 B.C. respectively); united 27 B.C. as a senatorial province (under a praetor). | ||
| 42. Africa, 146 B.C., senatorial under a consular proconsul; seems to have included Numidia from 25 B.C. | ||
| 43. Mauretania Caesariensis. 44. Mauretania Tingitana. |
40 A.D., imperial (under procurators). | |
It is important to note some changes that were made between the death of Marcus and the accession of Diocletian. (1) The diocese of Asturiaet Gallaecia was cut off as a separate imperial province from Tarraconensis (216 or 217 A.D.); (2) Britannia was divided by Septimius Severus (197 A.D.) into Brit. superior and Brit. inferior (each probably under a praeses); (3) Septimius made Numidia a separate province (under a legatus till Aurelian, afterwards under a praeses); (4) Syria was divided by the same Emperor (198 A.D.) into Syria Coele (Magna) and Syr. Phœnice; (5) Arabia was divided in the third century into Ar. Bostræa and Arabia Petræa, corresponding to the two chief towns of the province; (6) Mesopotamia (made a province by Trajan, and resigned by Hadrian) was restored by Lucius Verus; (7) For Dacia see p. 294.
7. CHANGES IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE SINCE GIBBON WROTE—(Pp. 22, 23)
Gibbon's account of the political geography of the Illyrian lands brings home to us the changes which have taken place within the last century. When he wrote, Servia and Bulgaria were "united in Turkish slavery"; Greece herself was under the same bondage as well as Moldavia, Walachia and Bosnia; the Dalmatian coast was a province of the Venetian State. Since then (1) the Turkish realm in Europe has been happily reduced, and (2) Austria has advanced at the expense of Venice. (1) Now Greece and Servia are each a kingdom, wholly independent of the Turk; Bulgaria is a free principality, only formally dependent on the Sultan. Moldavia and Walachia form the independent kingdom of Roumania. Even a portion of Thrace, south of the Balkans, known as Eastern Roumelia has been annexed to Bulgaria. Macedonia and the greatest part of Epirus are still Turkish. (2) All the Dalmatian coast, including Ragusa, belongs to Austria, but Antivari and Dulcigno belong to the independent Slavonic principality of Tzernagora or Montenegro (which was founded in the middle of the fifteenth century, preserved its independence against the Turks with varying success ever since, and in our own time played a conspicuous part in the events of 1876 to 1878, which so effectually checked the power of the Turk). Austria also acquired (by the treaty of Berlin, 1878) the protectorate of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8. COLONIES AND MUNICIPIA, IUS LATINUM—(P. 36)
The distinction between colonies and municipal towns, and the history of ius Latinum, are explained briefly in the following passage of the Student's Roman Empire, pp. 76, 77.
"It is to be observed that these communities were either coloniæ, or municipia. In the course of Italian history the word municipium had completely changed its meaning. Originally it was applied to a community possessing ius Latinum, and also to the civitas sine suffragio, and thus it was a term of contrast to those communities which possessed full Roman citizenship. But when in the course of time the civitates sine suffragio received political rights and the Roman states received full Roman citizenship, and thus the municipium proper disappeared from Italy, the word was still applied to those communities of Roman citizens which had originally been either Latin municipia or independent federate states. And it also, of course, continued to be applied to cities outside Italy which possessed ius Latinum. It is clear that originally municipium and colonia were not incompatible ideas. For a colony founded with ius Latinum was both a municipium and a colonia. But a certain opposition arose between them, and became stronger when municipium came to be used in a new sense. Municipium is only used of communities which existed as independent states before they received Roman citizenship, whether by the deduction of a colony or not. Colonia is generally confined to those communities which were settled for the first time as Roman cities, and were never states before. Thus municipium involves a reference to previous autonomy.
"Besides Roman cities, there were also Latin cities in the provinces. Originally there were two kinds of ius Latinum, one better and the other inferior. The old Latin colonies possessed the better kind. The inferior kind was known as the ius of Ariminum, and it alone was extended to provincial communities. When Italy received Roman citizenship after the Social war, the better kind of ius Latinum vanished for ever, and the lesser kind only existed outside Italy. The most important privilege which distinguished the Latin from peregrine communities was that the member of a Latin city had a prospect of obtaining full Roman citizenship by holding magistracies in his own community. The Latin communities are of course autonomous and are not controlled by the provincial governor; but like Roman communities they have to pay tribute for their land, which is the property of the Roman people, unless they possess immunity or ius Italicum as well as ius Latinum."
9. THE MINE OF SOUMELPOUR—(P. 55)
In an appendix to the second volume of his translation of Tavernier's Travels in India, Mr. V. Ball has pointed out (p. 457), that the diamond mine of Soumelpour on the Gouel is not to be identified, as hitherto, with Sambulpur on the Mahánadi, but is the same as "Semah or Semulpur on the Koel, in the Sub-Division of Palámau".
In the original, and all subsequent editions of Gibbon the name was spelt "Jumelpur". Mr. Ball rightly remarks that this is merely a misprint; and I have corrected it in the text.
10. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE—(Chapter III.)
The constitutional history of Rome (both Republican and Imperial) has been get on a new basis since Gibbon. The impulse was given by Niebuhr; and this branch of history has progressed hand in hand with the study of inscriptions on stone and metal. No one has done so much for the subject as Mommsen, whose Römisches Staatsrecht (3 vols.) occupies the same position for Roman constitutional history as the work of Bishop Stubbs for English. Another recent work of importance is E. Herzog's Geschichte und System der römischen Staatsverfassung (2 vols.). Madvig's Verfassung und Verwaltung des römischen Staates was retrogressive. The works of Mispoulet and Willems may also be mentioned. Of great value for details is O. Hirschfeld's Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der römischen Verwaltungsgeschichte. For the imperial procurators see "Procurator" in Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities, new edition.
It would be endless to enumerate the writers from whom material for the constitutional history is drawn; but attention must be called to the importance of inscriptions and coins which fill up many gaps in our knowledge. It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (edited by Mommsen and others) is the keystone of Mommsen's Staatsrecht. The Corpus is not yet complete, and must be supplemented by the collections of Orelli-Henzen and Wilmanns.
The most important collections of coins are Eckhel's Doctrina Numorum Veterum (8 vols.), which appeared in 1792—some years too late for Gibbon,—and Cohen's Descriptions des monnaies frappées sous l'Empire romain communément appelées Médailles impériales (1859-1868).
For a short account of the Imperial constitution I may refer to Mr. Pelham's article on the Principate in Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities, and to the Student's Roman Empire, chaps. ii. and iii. Here it will be enough to draw attention to a few important points in which Gibbon's statements need correction or call for precision.
(1) P. 60.—"Prince of the Senate."
The view that the name princeps meant princeps senatus held its ground until a few years ago, when it was exploded by Mr. Pelham. Princeps, the general, non-official designation of the emperors, meant "first of the Roman citizens" (princeps civium Romanorum or civitatis), and had nothing to do with the Senate.
Ib.—"He was elected censor."
The censorship of Augustus was only temporary; it was not considered one of the necessary prerogatives of the princeps, for that, as Gibbon says, would have meant the destruction of the independence of the senate. It must be remembered that in the theory of the principate the independence of the senate was carefully guarded, though practically the influence of the princeps was predominant. Augustus discharged the functions of censor repeatedly; not, however, under that name, but as præfectus morum. Gibbon is wrong in stating (p. 65) that the censorship was one of the Imperial prerogatives. He was followed in this by Merivale.
(3) P. 63.—"Lieutenants of the Emperor."
The provinces fell into two classes according as consulars or prætorians were admitted to the post of governor. But this distinction must not be confounded with that of the titles pro consule and pro prætore, which were borne by the governors of senatorial and Imperial provinces respectively. The representative of the emperor could not be pro consule, as his position depended on the proconsular imperium of the emperor himself. A vir consularis might be pro prætore. The full title of the Imperial lieutenant was legatus Augusti pro prætore.
In the dependent kingdoms were placed procuratores, of equestrian rank.
(4) P. 64.—"Consular and tribunitian powers."
Gibbon's statements here require correction, though the question of the exact constitution of the power of the princeps is still a matter of debate.
Augustus at first intended to found the principate as a continuation of the proconsular imperium with the consulate, and he held the consulate from 27 to 23 b.c. But then he changed his mind, as this arrangement gave rise to some difficulties, and replaced the consular power by the tribunitian power, which had been conferred on him for life in 36 b.c., after his victory over Sextus Pompeius. Thus the principate depended on the association of the proconsular with the tribunitian power; and Augustus dated the years of his reign from 23, not from 27 b.c. After this he filled the consulship only in those years in which he instituted a census.
(5) P. 65.—"Supreme pontiff."
He became Pontiff in 12 b.c. Besides being Pont. Max. Augustus belonged to the other sacerdotal colleges. He was augur, septemvir, quindecimvir.
11. THE CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRINCIPATE OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS—(Pp. 120-125)
The name of Septimius Severus marks an important stage in the development of the Principate of Augustus into the absolute monarchy of Diocletian. If he had been followed by emperors as strong and far-sighted as himself, the goal would have been reached sooner; and, moreover, the tendencies of his policy would have been clearer to us. But the administration of his immediate successors was arbitrary; and the reaction under Alexander threw things back. Severus had no Tiberius or Constantine to follow him; and like Augustus he committed the error of founding a dynasty. His example was a warning to Diocletian.
The records of his reign show that he took little account of the senate, and made much of the army. This has been brought out by Gibbon. But it would be a mistake to call his rule a military despotism. He did not apply military methods to civil affairs. He was more than a mere soldier-emperor; he was a considerable statesman.
His influence on constitutional history concerns three important points. (1) He furthered in a very marked way the tendency, already manifest early in the second century, to remove the line of distinction between Italy and the provinces. (a) He recruited the Prætorian guards, hitherto Italians, from the legionaries, and so from the provinces. (b) He encroached on the privileges of Italy by quartering one of three new legions, which he created, in a camp on Mount Alba near Rome. (c) He assumed the proconsular title in Italy. (d) By the bestowal of ius Italicum he elevated a great many provincial cities (in Dacia, Africa, and Syria) to a level with Italy. (2) He increased the importance of the Prætorian Prefect. We can now see this post undergoing a curious change from a military into a civil office. Held by Papinian, it seemed to be the summit in the career not of a soldier but of a jurist. (3) The financial policy of Severus in keeping the res privata of the princeps distinct from his fiscus,—crown property as distinguished from state revenue (cp. p. 99, footnote 52).
There is no doubt that the tendency to give effect to the maius imperium of the princeps in controlling the governors of the senatorial provinces and the republican magistrates (consuls) was confirmed and furthered under Severus. For example, governors of senatorial provinces are brought before his court, Hist. Aug. x. 4, 8. The maius imperium, used with reserve by the earlier emperors, was one of the chief constitutional instruments by which the princeps ousted the senate from the government and converted the "dyarchy" into a monarchy.
Note.—In regard to the prefecture of the Prætorian guards, the rule that it should be held by two colleagues was generally observed from Augustus to Diocletian. We can quote cases of (1) two prefects under Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Pius, Marcus, Commodus, Julianus, Severus, Caracalla, Elagabalus, Macrinus, Alexander, Gordian; (2) of one præfect under Augustus (Seius Strabo), Tiberius (Sejanus Macro), Claudius and Nero (Burrus), Galba, Vespasian (Clemens, Titus), Pius, Alexander (Ulpian), Probus; (3) of three præfects under Commodus, Julianus, Alexander (Ulpian as superior colleague and two others).
12. CHRONOLOGY OF 238 A.D.—(P. 179)
The chronological difficulties of the year 238, which exercised Tillemont, Clinton, Eckhel (vii. 293 sqq.) and Borghesi, have been recently discussed with care by O. Seeck in a paper in the Rheinisches Museum, xli. (p. 161 sqq.) 1886, and by J. Löhrer in his monograph de Julio Vero Maximino.
The Chronicler of 354 gives as the length of the reign of Maximin three years, four months, two days, which would give 17th March 235 to 18th July 238 (Hist. Aug. xxi. i.). The latter date cannot be right (for Alexandrian coins show that the seventh trib. year of Gordian III. ran from 30th August 243 to 29th August 244, proving that Gordian was elected before 29th August 238; the latest possible date for the dethronement of Maximus and Balbinus would therefore be 1st August, and in the thirteen days between 18th July and that day, there is not room for the arrival of the news of Maximin's death at Rome, for the journey of Maximus to Aquileia and his stay there); hence Seeck emends menses iii. (for menses iiii.), which gives 17th June for Maximin's death. He calculates that the siege of Aquileia began in the beginning or middle of May.
The Chronicler of 354 gives ninety-nine days for the reign of Maximus and Balbinus; and twenty days for that of the two Gordians, but Seeck shows from Zonaras (622 d.), and Glycas (243 c.) that this number should be twenty-two. Allowing roughly 130 days from the elevation of the Gordians to the fall of Maximus and Balbinus, we get 24th March, as the latest possible date for the elevation of the Gordians. This calculation would suit Cod. Just. vii. 26, 5 (Imp. Gordianus A. Marino), which is subscribed xii. Kal. April Pio et Pontiano Coss., and would prove that the reign of Gordianus began before 2lst March. But we should have to emend Impp. Gordiani.
It must be remembered that this plausible reconstruction of Seeck depends on the emendation of a text.
13. AUTHORITIES FOR ORIENTAL AFFAIRS—(Chapter VIII.)
The Armenian writers: Moses of Chorene, History of Armenia; Agathangelus, History of the Reign of Tiridates and the Preaching of Gregory Illuminator (Müller, F. H. G. v. 2; transl. by V. Langlois); Faustus of Byzantium, Historical Library (ib.). The credibility of Moses of Chorene is examined in an important article by Gutschmid in the Berichte der kön. sächs. Gesellschaft d. Wissensch, 1876. A. Carrière has recently attempted to show (Nouvelles Sources de Moïse de Khoren, 1893) that the work of Moses belongs not to the latter half of the fifth, but to the beginning of the eighth century.
Agathias, the Greek historian, who wrote at the end of the sixth century, made a special study of Sassanid history, and, through a friend, derived information from Persian documents. His digression on the origin of the new Persian kingdom (bk. ii. 26, 27) is important.
Rawlinson's Sixth and Seventh Oriental Monarchies treat of the Parthian and new Persian periods respectively. Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans von Alexander dem Grossen bis zum Untergang der Arsaciden, 1888. Justi, Geschichte Persiens. Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sassaniden, 1879. Schneiderwirth, Die Parther, 1874. Drexler, Caracallas Zug nach dem Orient.
14. THE ZEND AVESTA—(P. 197 sqq.)
The first European translation of the Avesta was made by Anqnetil du Perron, and appeared (in 3 vols.) in 1771, just in time for Gibbon to make use of. The appearance of this work aroused a storm of controversy, chiefly in England, and it is interesting to observe that Gibbon was among those who accepted the Avesta as genuine documents of the Zoroastrian religion. It is unnecessary to say that in the present century their antiquity has been abundantly confirmed.
The Avesta is a liturgical collection of fragments from older texts, and is (as M. Darmesteter remarks) more like a prayer-book than a Bible. It consists of two parts, of which the first (1) contains the Vendîdâd, the Visperâd, and the Yasna. The Vendîdâd (a corruption of vîdaêvô-dâtem="antidemoniac law") consists of religious laws and legendary tales; the Visperâd, of litanies for sacrifice; and the Yasna, of litanies also, and five hymns in an older dialect than the rest of the work. The second part (2) is the Small Avesta, a collection of short prayers.
Two questions arise: (a) "When was the Avesta compiled? (b) What is the origin of the older texts which supplied the material?
(a) It is generally supposed that the Avesta was first collected under the Sassanids. But it is stated in a Pahlavi authority that the collection was begun under the Arsacids (having been ordered by King Valkash or Vologeses) and completed under the Sassanid Shapûr II. in the fourth century (a.d. 309-380). If this is true, we must modify the usual view of the revival of Mazdeism by Ardeshîr the first Sassanid, and regard his religious movement as merely the thorough realization of an idea derived from the Parthian princes. M. Darmesteter concludes his discussion of the question thus (Introduction to his translation of the Zend Avesta, p. xxxv.): "It can be fairly admitted, that even in the time and at the court of the Philhellenic Parthians a Zoroastrian movement may have originated, and that there came a time when they perceived that a national religion is a part of national life. It was the merit of the Sassanids that they saw the drift of this idea which they had the good fortune to carry out." It would of course be vain to attempt to determine which of the four or five kings named Vologeses originated the collection. The completion under Shapûr II. is an established fact.
(b) As to the older texts from which the Avesta was put together, Darmesteter concludes that "the original texts of the Avesta were not written by the Persians. . . . They were written in Media by the priests of Ragha and Atropatene in the language of Media, and they exhibit the ideas of the sacerdotal class under the Achaemenian dynasty."
There is a Parsi tradition that of twenty-one original books the Vendîdâd is the sole remaining one. But Zend scholars seem uncertain as to how far this tradition is to be accepted. For the original religion of Ahura-mazda, as it existed under the Achaemenians, our sources are (1) the inscriptions of Darius and his successors, and (2) Herodotus and other Greek writers.
Those who wish to know more of the Avesta and the Zoroastrian religion may be sent to M. Darmesteter's translation of the Vendîdâd (vol. iv. of the "Sacred Books of the East") and his admirable Introduction, to which I am indebted for the summary in this note. This translation has superseded those of Spiegel and De Harlez; but it must be observed that the students of the sacred books of the Persians constantly disagree in a very marked way, in translation as well as in interpretation.
15. THE ORIGIN OF THE GOTHS; AND THE GOTHIC HISTORY OF JORDANES—(P. 239 sqq.)
The earliest mention of the Goths of which we have any record occurred in the work of Pytheas of Massilia, who lived towards the end of the fourth century b.c. and is famous as the earliest explorer of the North. His good faith has been called in question by some ancient writers, but the moderns take a more favourable view of his work, so far as it is known from the references of such writers as Strabo and Pliny. (See Mullenhoff, Deutsche Alterthumskunde, I.) His notice of the Goths is cited by Pliny, Nat. Hist, xxxvii. 2: Pytheas Guttonibus Germaniae genti accoli aestuarium Oceani Mentonomon nomine spatio stadiorum sex milia; ab hoc diei navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. The names Abalum and Mentonomon are mysterious; but there seems ground for inferring that in the fourth century b.c. the Guttones lived in the same regions on the shores of the Baltic which they occupied in the first century a.d. (Pliny, Nat. Hist. iv. 14; Tacitus, Germ. 43, Gotones). Nor is there any good ground for refusing to identify the Gotones or Guttones of the first century with the Gothi of the third. (See Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vol. i. cap. i., to which I would refer for a full discussion, as well as to Dahn's Könige der Germanen.)
Our chief source for the early history of the Goths is the Getica (or de origine actibusque Getarum) of Jordanes (whom it was formerly usual to call Jornandes, a name which appears only in inferior Mss.). Jordanes (a Christian name suggesting the river Jordan) was a native of Lower Moesia, and lived in the sixth century in the reign of Justinian. It is not quite certain to what nationality he belonged; but it is less probable that he was a genuine Goth or even a Teuton than that he was of Alanic descent. A certain Candac had led a mixed body of barbarians, Scyri, Sadagarii and Alans (see Get. l. 265) into Lower Moesia and Scythia; they had settled in the land, assimilated themselves to the surrounding Goths, and adopted the Gothic name, more illustrious than their own. The grandfather of Jordanes had been a notary of Candac, and Jordanes himself was secretary of Candac's nephew Gunthigis. This connexion of the family of Jordanes with a family which was certainly not Gothic, combined with the name of his father Alanoviimuthes, leads us to conclude that Jordanes was an Alan;[3] and this was quite consistent with his being an ardent "Goth". The small Alanic settlement of Moesia merged itself in the Gothic people, just as the larger Alanic population of Spain merged itself in the Vandalic nation. Beginning life as a scribe, Jordanes ended it as a monk (Getica, l. 266), perhaps as a bishop; it has been proposed to identify him with a bishop of Croton who lived at the same time and bore the same name (Mansi, ix. 60).
Jordanes wrote his Getica in the year 551. It was unnecessary for him to say that he had no literary training (agrammatus); this fact is written large all over his work. He states that his book was the result of a three days' study of the Gothic History of Cassiodorius the learned minister of Theodoric. The fact is that the Getica is simply an abridgment of the larger work of Cassiodorius (in twelve books); and modern critics (Usener, Hodgkin) not unreasonably question the "three days" of Jordanes. Thus, when we are dealing with Jordanes, we are really, in most cases, dealing with Cassiodorius; and the spirit, the tendency, of Cassiodorius is faithfully reflected in Jordanes. To praise the Gothic race, and especially the Amal line to which Theodoric belonged, was the aim of that monarch's minister; Jordanes writes in the same spirit and echoes the antipathy to the Vandals which was expressed by Cassiodorius. There are, however, also certain original elements in the Getica. There is a significant contrast between the knowledge of the geography of the eastern provinces of the Balkan peninsula and the ignorance of the rest of the empire, which are displayed in this treatise. The stress laid on the institution of Gothic foederati may be attributed rather to the Moesian subject of the empire than to the minister of the independent Ostrogothic kingdom.
One of the features of the lost work of Cassiodorius was the manufacture of an ancient history for the Goths by the false identification of that race with the Getae and with the Scythians. The former confusion was suggested by the resemblance of name, the latter by the geographical comprehensiveness of the term Scythia, which embraced all the peoples of the North before they appeared on the scene of history. These fanciful reconstructions are eagerly adopted by Jordanes.
It may be well doubted whether Jordanes consulted on his own account another writer on Gothic history, Ablavius (cp. Gibbon, chap. x. note 5), who is merely a name to us. He cites him with praise (iv. 28 and elsewhere); but there is little doubt that the laudatory references are derived from Cassiodorius. On the other hand it may be supposed that Jordanes, living among Goths, counting himself as a Goth, had some independent knowledge of old Gothic legends and songs to which he refers as mentioned by Ablavius (ib., quem ad modum et in priscis eorum carminibus pene storico ritu, &c.). The emigration of the Goths from Scandzia, the island of the far north, their coming to the land of Oium, and battle with the Spali, are not indeed historical, but are a genuine Gothic legend; and stand on quite a different footing from the Getic and Scythian discoveries of Cassiodorius.
The other work of Jordanes, a summary of Roman history (entitled de summa temporum vel origine actibusque gentis Romanorum, usually cited as Romana), written partly before, partly after, the Getica, does not concern us here. An account of the sources of both works will be found in Mommsen's exhaustive Proœmium to his splendid edition in the Monumenta Germaniæ historica (1882), from which for this brief notice I have selected a few leading points. The reader may also be referred to the clear summary and judicious discussion of Mr. Hodgkin in the introduction and appendix to the first chapter of his Italy and her Invaders, and to Mr. Acland's article "Jordanes" in the Dictionary of Christian Biography.
Some other points in connexion with Jordanes will call for notice when we come to his own time.
16. VISIGOTHS AND OSTROGOTHS—(P. 242)
We cannot say with certainty at what period the Gothic race was severed into the nations of East and West Goths. The question is well discussed by Mr. Hodgkin, in Italy and her Invaders, chap. i. Appendix.
The name Ostrogoth occurs first in the Life of Claudius Gothicus in the Historia Augusta (written about the beginning of the fourth century), and next in Claudian, in Eutrop. ii. 153 (at the end of the same century). Our first testimony to the existence of the Visigothic name is later. In the fifth century Sidonius Apollinaris speaks of the Vesi in two places (Pan. in Avit. 456; Pan. in Major. 458). Is there any ground for inferring that the Ostrogothic name is the older? It looks rather as if at first (c. 300-400) the distinction was between Ostrogoths and Goths; and that the name Visigoth was a later appellation.
We must emphatically reject the view that Gruthungi and Thervingi were old names for Ostrogoths and Visigoths respectively and expressed the same distinction. Mr. Hodgkin has noticed the objections supplied by the passages in the Vita Claudii and Claudian; and they are decisive.
17. THE DEFEAT OF VALERIAN, AND THE DATE OF CYRIADES—(P. 270)
Valerian set out in 257, held a council of war in Byzantium at the beginning of 258 (Hist. Aug. xxvi. 13). Thence he proceeded to Cappadocia. The north coasts of Asia Minor were suffering at this time from the invasions of the Germans, and it has been conjectured that there may have been an understanding between the European and Asiatic enemies of the Empire (as sometimes in later ages; as once before in the days of Decebalus), and that Valerian aimed at preventing a junction of Persians and Goths. Vict. Parthica on coins in 259 a.d. point to a victory perhaps near Edessa. Where Valerian was captured is uncertain. Cedrenus says in Cæsarea (i. p. 454); the anonymous Continuator of Dion suggests the neighbourhood of Samosata. The date is uncertain too. There is no trace of Valerian after 260 a.d. Inscriptions and sculptures on the rocks of Nakshi Rustan have been supposed to commemorate the Persian victory.
Gibbon in his "probable series of events" has distinctly gone wrong. Two things are certain: (1) Sapor was twice at Antioch, and (2) Cyriades fell before Valerian. The first visit of the Persian monarch to Antioch was in the summer of 256, whither he was accompanied by Cyriades (also called Mariades, see Müller, F. H. G. iv. p. 192), whom he had set up in that city as a Persian vassal. Antioch was won back in the same year or in 257; Cyriades was torn to pieces by the inhabitants, and the Persians were massacred. See Ammian, xxiii. 5; Hist. Aug. xxiv. 2. The second visit of Sapor to Antioch was after the capture of Valerian. See Aur. Victor, Cæsar. 33, 3.
18. THE PRETENDERS IN THE REIGN OF GALLIENUS, KNOWN AS THE THIRTY TYRANTS—(P. 275)
Fati publici fuit, says Trebellius Pollio, who recorded the deeds of the tyrants in the Augustan History, ut Gallieni tempore quicunque potuit, ad imperium prosiliret. Gibbon recognized that the significance of these shadow-emperors was only "collective"; they all vanished rapidly; the emperor's power always proved superior. Their simultaneous appearance only illustrates vividly the general disintegration of the Empire.
It may be well, however, to add a few details, chiefly references, to the succinct account of Gibbon. I take them in the order of his list.
(1) Cyriades. See p. 270, and Appendix 17.
(2) Macrianus. The generals Macrianus and Balista caused the two sons of the former, T. Fulvius Junius Macrianus and T. Fulvius Junius Quietus, to be proclaimed emperors (261 A.D.; see Hist. Aug. Vita Gall. 1, 2). It is a question whether Macrianus their father (he to whom Gibbon imputed the blame of Valerian's disaster) assumed the purple also. There can, I think, be no doubt that he did not. We have (a) the negative evidence that no coins which can be certainly ascribed to him and not to his son are forthcoming; (b) the story of his refusal in Hist. Aug. xxiv. 7-11; and (c) the positive statement of Zonaras, xii. 24. Against this we have to place the apparent statement in Hist. Aug. xxiii. l, 2-4 (I say apparent, because the passage is mutilated), and the clear statement in xxiv. 12, 12, which is glaringly inconsistent with the immediately preceding narrative. Macrianus is described as refusing the empire on the ground of old age and bodily weakness, and casting the burden on his sons. Balista, who had offered him the empire, agrees: and then the narrative proceeds: "Macrianus promises (clearly in the name of his sons) a double donation to the soldiers and hurls threats against Gallienus; accordingly he was made emperor along with Macrianus and Quietus his two sons," as if this were the logical outcome of the proceedings. From this evidence there can I think be only one conclusion.
(3) Balista. He has even less claim than the elder Macrianus to a place among the tyrants; like Macrianus he was only a tyrant-maker. Hist. Aug. xxiv. 12, 4, and 18.
(4) Odenathus. The ground for placing Odenathus among the tyrants seems to be that he assumed the title of king (Hist. Aug. xxiv. 15, 2) and that he had great power in the East. But a tyrant means one who rebels against the true emperor and usurps the Imperial title. Odenathus never rebelled against Gallienus and never usurped the title Augustus (Σεβαστός) or the title Cæsar. He supported the interests of Gallienus in the East and overthrew the real tyranny which was set up by Macrianus. For his services Gallienus rewarded him by the title of αὐτοκράτωρ or imperator, an unusual title to confer, but not necessarily involving Imperial dignity. (This title is enough to account for the statement in Hist. Aug. xxiii. 12, 1.) As a king he held the same position that, for instance, Agrippa held under Claudius. An inscription of a statue which two of his generals erected in his honour in 271 A.D. has been preserved (de Vogüe, Syrie centrale, p. 28) and there he is entitled king of kings. This, as Schiller says (i. 838), should be decisive.
(5) Zenobia. What applies to Odenathus applies to Zenobia as far as the reign of Gallienus is concerned. She received the title Σεβαστη in Egypt, but not till after 271 and doubtless with the permission of Claudius.
(6) Postumus. (See note 86, p. 256.) He made his residence at Trier, was acknowledged in Spain and Britain, and seems to have taken effective measures for the tranquillity and security of Gaul. In 262 he celebrated his quinquennalia (Eckhel, vii. 438). His coinage is superior to that of the lawful emperors of the time; it did not pass current in Italy, and the Imperial money was excluded from Gaul (Mommsen, Röm. Münzwesen, 815). It is important to observe that Postumus was faithful to the idea of Rome. He was not in any sense a successor of Sacrovir, Vindex and Classicus; he had no thought of an anti-Roman imperium Galliarum.
(7) Lollianus. This is the form of the name in our Mss. of his Life in the Historia Augusta (xxiv. 5); his true name, Cornelius Ulpianus Laelianus, is preserved on coins (Cohen, v. 60). In a military mutiny (268 A.D., in his fifth consulship) Postumus was slain and Laelianus elevated. The new tyrant marched against the Germans, who had taken advantage of this struggle (subita irruptione Germanorum) to invade the empire and destroy the forts which Postumus during the year of his rule had erected on the frontier; but he was slain by his soldiers,—it is said, because he was too energetic, quod in labore nimius esset (Hist. Aug. xxiv. 5). Victorinus, who succeeded him, had probably something to do with his death.
(8) Victorinus. In 265 A.D. Gallienus sent Aureolus to assert his authority in Gaul against Postumus. In the course of the war, an Imperial commander M. Piauvonius Victorinus deserted to the tyrant, who welcomed him and created him Caesar. Victorinus obtained supreme power after the death of Laelianus. He reigned but a few months; his death is noticed by Gibbon in chap. xi.
Victoria or Victorina. The mother of Victorinus (see chap. xi.). Her coins are condemned as spurious (Cohen, 5, 75).
(9) Marius. M. Aurelius Marius; Eckhel, vii. 454. According to Hist. Aug. xxiv. 8. 1, he reigned only three days after the death of Victorinus. Perhaps he survived Victorinus by three days, but there can be no doubt that he arose as a tyrant, at an earlier date, perhaps immediately after the death of Postumus. If he had reigned only three days, it is unlikely we should have his coins. Compare Schiller, i. 856.
(10) Tetricus. (See chap, xi.)
(11) Ingenuus. His tyranny was set up in Pannonia and Moesia in the same year as that of Postumus in Gaul (258 A.D.). He was defeated by Aureolus at Mursa—the scene of the defeat of a more famous tyrant in later times—and slain, at his own request, by his shield-bearer.
(12) Regillianus. A Dacian, who held the post of dux of Illyricum; his true name was Regalianus, preserved on coins and in one Ms. of the Historia Augusta. He had won victories against the Sarmatians, and his name, in its corrupt form, lent itself to the declension of rex: "rex, regis, regi, Regi-lianus" (Hist. Aug. xxiv. 10, 5). But his reign lasted only for a moment. His elevation was probably due to disaffection produced by the hard measures adopted by Gallienus in Pannonia when he suppressed the revolt of Ingenuus.
(13) Aureolus. (See chap, xi.)
(14) Saturninus. Of him we know nothing. See Hist. Aug. xxiv. 23, and xxiii. 9, 1.
(15) Trebellianus. See Hist. Aug. xxiv. 26; beyond what is stated there we know nothing. Palatiuni in arce Isauriae constituit. He was slain by an Egyptian, brother of the man who slew Æmilianus, tyrant in Egypt, see below.
(16) Piso. It is probably a mistake to include Piso among the tyrants. He belonged to the party of Macrianus (see above), who in 261 sent him to Greece to overpower the governor Valens. But a curious thing happened. Piso, who had come in the name of a tyrant, supported the cause of the lawful emperor Gallienus (see Hist. Aug. xxiv. 21, 4), while Valens, who represented the cause of Gallienus, revolted, and became a tyrant himself. Both Piso and Valens were slain by their soldiers;—the news of Piso's death had reached Rome by the 25th June (Hist. Aug. ib. 3).
(17) Valens. See last note.
(18) Æmilianus. He threatened to starve the empire, which depended for corn on Egypt. There are no genuine coins of this tyrant.
(19) Celsus. Elevated by the proconsul of Africa and the dux limitis Libyci. Hist. Aug. xxiv. 29.
Of these nineteen, Macrianus, Balista, Odenathus, Zenobia, and Piso have no claim to be regarded as tyrants. But the places of Macrianus the father and Balista may be filled by Macrianus the son. and Quietus. Thus the number nineteen is reduced to sixteen.
It is worth noting that Pollio, who, as Gibbon says, "expresses the most minute anxiety to complete the number" of the thirty tyrants, and as we have seen includes some who were certainly not tyrants, should omit two names of rebels which are mentioned by Zosimus. In i. 38 (ed. Mendelssohn) this historian says: ἐν τούτῳ δὲ ἐπαναστάντων αὐτῷ (Gallienus) Μέμορος τε τοῦ Μουρουσίου καὶ Aὐριόλου καὶ Ἀντωνίνου καὶ ἑτέρων πλειόνων. Aurelius we know; ἑτέρους πλείονας we know; but who were Memor and Antoninus? Are they mentioned by Pollio under other names or did they not reach the length of an Imperial title? Of Antoninus as far as I know we hear nowhere else, but of Memor we have a notice, in a fragment of the Anonymous Continuer of Dion Cassius (Müller, F. H. G. iv. p. 193), frag. 4, where the mention of a Theodotus recalls him who put to death Æmilianus and makes us think of Egypt. (In the old Stephanian text of Zosimus Κέκροπος is read instead of Μέμορος; but the unknown Ms. used by Stephanus seems to have been worthless.)
19. ZENOBIA—(P. 302 sqq.)
In regard to Gibbon's account of the war of Aurelian with Zenobia, the following points are to be observed:—
(1) This war preceded the subjugation of Tetricus and Gaul.
(2) After her husband's death Zenobia took the title βασίλισσα, and while her son Wahballath succeeded to his father's position as dux Romanorum and Lord of Palmyra, she really ruled. The name Wahballath, meaning dea dedit, was rendered in Greek by Ἀθηνό-δωρος.
(3) The story told by Gibbon from Hist. Aug. xxiii. 13, that Zenobia defeated a Roman army (under one Heraclian) is suspicious (see Schiller, i. 859, note 1); for we find her on good terms with the Roman government immediately after, and she recovers Egypt, which was under the usurper Probatus, for Claudius, who was too much occupied with the Gothic danger to proceed himself against the tyrant. Her son AVahballath governed in Egypt as the representative of Claudius, and the circumstance that he was officially named βασιλεύς does not imply that he was a rebel.
(4) Aurelian on his accession 270 A.D. recognized Wahballath as vir consularis Romanorum Imperator dux Romanorum; he appeared beside Aurelian on coins; and his mother assumed the title Augusta.
(5) Wahballath began to issue coins without the head of Aurelian and assumed the title Augustus. This seems to have been a consequence of an estrangement from the Emperor ; but we do not know the immediate circumstances. The position which the Palmyrene family occupied was obviously inconsistent with the unity of the Empire.
(6) The following stages may be marked in the course of the war: (a) Probus establishes the authority of Aurelian in Egypt, and the forces of Zenobia fail at Chalcedon; (b) Aurelian takes Ancyra and Tyana, and passes into Syria; (c) Zenobia's army is driven from Antioch, and (d) defeated at Emesa; (e) the surrender of Palmyra (early in 272); (f) its final destruction (spring 273).
(7) Von Sallet, who has thrown much light on this episode in his work Die Fürsten von Palmyra, thinks that the catastrophe of Palmyra was accomplished before the end of 271. But there are serious objections to his chronology. See Schiller, i. 857-864.
20. CORRECTOR ITALIÆ—(P. 312)
As Gibbon notices, two statements are made in the Historia Augusta, as to the honourable provision which Aurelian made for Tetricus. In the Life of Tetricus (xxiv, 24, 5) we read: conrectorem totius Italiæ fecit, id est, Campaniae, Samni, Lucanise, Brittiorum [Bruttii], Apuliae, Calabriæ, Etruriæ atque Umbriæ, Piceni et Flaminiæ omnisque annonariæ regionis; but in the Life of Aurelian (xxvi. 39, 1) Tetricum triumphatum correctorem Lucaniæ fecit (so Aurel. Victor. &c.). Both statements cannot be true, and Mommsen (Ephem. epig. i. 140) has proved that the first is to be accepted and the second rejected.
We find the idea of a governor of Italy in the famous advice to Augustus which Dion Cassius (52, 21) puts in the mouth of Maecenas. It is suggested that Italy beyond a circuit of a hundred miles from Borne should be governed like the provinces. But as early as 214 we find C. Suetrius Sabinus, a consular, as electus ad corrigendum statum Italiæ (C. I. L. x. 5398) and at a later period Pomponius Bassus ἐπανορθωτὴς πάσης Ἰταλίας. See further Mommsen, loc. cit., and Staatsrecht, ii. 1086.
Thus we find that correctors of all Italy were occasionally appointed, during the third century. Therefore, Mommsen argues convincingly (and it is a good instance of the application of a principle of historical criticism), the notice that Tetricus was corrector Italiæ is the true one. For a later writer to whom correctors of Lucania were perfectly familiar would never have changed a corrector Lucaniæ into a corrector Italiæ.
21. PROBUS AND THE LIMES GERMANICUS—(P. 331.)
The statement of Gibbon that Probus "constructed a stone wall of a considerable height, and strengthened it by towers at convenient distances" is not warranted by the evidence, which consists entirely of two remarks in his Life in the Hist. Aug.:—
(1) c. 13. contra urbes Romanas et castra in solo barbarico posuit atque illic milites collocavit.
(2) c. 14. sed visum est id non posse fieri nisi si limes Romanus extenderetur et fieret Germania tota provincia. (id refers to the command of Probus, that the German dependent tribes should not fight themselves, but, when attacked, seek the aid of the Roman army.)
It will be observed that the only statement of fact is in the first passage, from which we learn that Probus constructed and garrisoned some forts on soil which was then barbarian. The second passage states no fact, but ventilates a, perhaps wild, hypothesis.
It is also to be noticed that the actual Wall, constructed long before the time of Probus, was not a regular wall of hewn stone, and that its length between the points that Gibbon roughly marks was more than 300 (not "near 200") miles.
It may be added that the limes (both the trans-Rhenane and the trans-Danubian) was probably due chiefly to Domitian and Hadrian.
There is a considerable literature on the Imperial limes; but all previous works will be superseded by "Der Obergermanischraetische Limes des Römerreichs," edited by O. von Sarwey and F. Hettner, and published under the auspices of the Reichs-Limes-Kommission. This work is appearing in parts.
22. GERMAN CAMPAIGNS OF DIOCLETIAN, MAXIMIAN AND CONSTANTIUS (A.D. 285-299)—(P. 361 sqq.)
(1) There was a campaign in spring 285, against German invaders of the Danubian regions, in consequence of which Diocletian assumed the title of Germanicus Maximus. Cp. Corp. Insc. Lat. vi. 1116.
(2) In 286 the Alamanni (who, pushed by the Burgundians, had left their old abodes on the Main and established themselves along the banks of the Rhine, within the limes, from Mainz to Lake Constance) and Burgundians invaded Gaul. Maximian was at Mainz, in June (Frag. Vat. 271). The Heruls and Chaibones also approached the frontier, but their host was destroyed by Maximian, who allowed plague and famine to work havoc among the Alamannic invaders. See Mamertinus, Pan. Max. v. and Genethl. Max. 17.
(3) At the beginning of 287 marauding expeditions had to be repelled and Maximian won back some territory bevond the Rhine. Mamertinus, Pan. Max. 6, 10.
(4) 291; war with the Franks, of whom large numbers were settled in lands of the Nervii and round Trier. Cp. Incert. Pan. Constant. Cses. 21, Mamert. Genethl. Max. 7.
(5) 293, summer; Constantius, having taken Gesoriacum, invades the land of the Franks, and, returning victorious, settles a large number as coloni in Gaul. It has been conjectured (Schiller, ii. 132) that the regions of the Lower Meuse and Rhine were now once more incorporated in the Empire as the province of Germania Secunda, which is mentioned in the List of provinces found at Verona (see Introduction, p. li.)
(6) After the recovery of Britain, Constantius busied himself with the fortification of the Rhine frontier. In 298 the victories of Langres and Windisch (Vindonissa) were won over the Alamanni.
(7) In 299 Constantius invaded the land of the Alamanni; Incert. Pan. Constantio Cæs. 2, 3.
For the determination of the chronology Mommsen's study in the Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, 1860, is invaluable.
23. DIOCLETIAN'S TARIFF OF MAXIMUM PRICES—(P. 377)
The most celebrated work of Diocletian in the field of political economy was the edict (referred to by Lactantius in De Mort. persecutorum, 7; partial copies of it have been discovered since Gibbon wrote in the form of inscriptions) fixing maximum prices for provisions and wages, 301 a.d. See Corp. Insc. Lat. iii. 801 sqq. It had been found that, notwithstanding plenteous harvests, prices and wages went up. The soldiers especially suffered, and, unable to purchase their provisions from their pay, were obliged to draw upon their savings. It is probable that the law was not universal, but applied only to those provinces which were ruled directly by Diocletian; it is also probable that it was enforced only for a few years. For a full discussion see Mommsen's paper in the Berichte der könsächsischen Ges. d. Wissensch., phil.-hist. klasse, 1851. The text is published in a convenient form by Mommsen, with notes by Blümmer, 1693.
The monetary reforms of Diocletian, though they were not permanent, have some interest in connexion with this edict. He coined a new aureus of 60 to a pound of gold; he restored the denarius of silver; and introduced some new copper coins. The relative value of silver to gold seems to have been determined at 1427 to 1. See Finlay, Hist, of Greece, vol. 1, App. 1.
ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS.
- ↑ The Excerpta de Sententiis contain not direct extracts from Dion, but passages founded on his work. The Planudean Excerpts (fifteenth century) are spurious. See preface to Melber's edition.
- ↑ Cp. xxvii. 8, 1, where an "ivory volume in the sixth armarium" is referred to. Decrees of the Senate, relating to the Emperors, used to be written in ivory books, as we learn in the same place.
- ↑ There are internal confirmations of this conclusion,—signs of a special interest taken by Jordanes in the Alans; see Getica, xv. 83, xxiv. 126-7, xliii. 226. See Mommsen, Proœmium to his edition, p. x.